Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC010982 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:15:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx-out03.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3CE0AB for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:15:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com X-Spam-Score: -2.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx04.mykolab.com (mx04.mykolab.com [10.20.7.102]) by mx-out03.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0C0828E42 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 17:15:12 +0200 (CEST) From: Tom Zander To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 17:15:10 +0200 Message-ID: <55482016.LADLl5KXAH@strawberry> In-Reply-To: <537fb7106e0387c77537f0b1279cbeca@cock.lu> References: <537fb7106e0387c77537f0b1279cbeca@cock.lu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:35:51 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Compact Client Side Filtering for Light Clients X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:15:17 -0000 On Monday, 19 June 2017 14:26:46 CEST bfd--- via bitcoin-dev wrote: > It's been debated if [filtering of] unconfirmed transactions are > necessary, Why would it not be needed? Any SPV client (when used as a payment-receiver) requires this from a simple usability point of view. -- Tom Zander Blog: https://zander.github.io Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel