1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC4788F5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:25:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail148107.authsmtp.com (outmail148107.authsmtp.com
[62.13.148.107])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E20111D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:25:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c237.authsmtp.com (mail-c237.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.237])
by punt18.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t7LMPp0p046119;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 23:25:51 +0100 (BST)
Received: from muck (S0106e091f5827ad2.ok.shawcable.net [24.71.232.17])
(authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t7LMPkQG010252
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 23:25:49 +0100 (BST)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:25:46 -0700
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Chris Pacia <ctpacia@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150821222545.GE7450@muck>
References: <55D6AD19.10305@mattcorallo.com>
<CADm_WcZJEe4fz4dLYKeOzC0CWbM=-o92BvEF0qiGvNwyMjrEiA@mail.gmail.com>
<20150821055534.GA27259@muck>
<CADm_WcanqF7oHn7huKuYP8iFWmY4XE58tG01M_Nqg9qx6YFu9A@mail.gmail.com>
<20150821060716.GA31674@muck>
<CAB+qUq5H1Ggzgdc-X7CPAz9orhMgPgQc4_G8TdC-oeSr174p1A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="HB4mHL4PVvkpZAgW"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAB+qUq5H1Ggzgdc-X7CPAz9orhMgPgQc4_G8TdC-oeSr174p1A@mail.gmail.com>
X-Server-Quench: 9399358b-4853-11e5-9f75-002590a135d3
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aQdMdAMUGUATAgsB AmMbWVdeUlh7XGM7 aQ5PagRDYElMQQRt
T01BRU1TWkFvfWFh XX9pUhhydQBENnZ4 bUUsV3NSVUd/fRRg
RkZRFnAHZDJldWlJ V0VFdwNWdQpKLx5G bwR8GhFYa3VsNCMk
FAgyOXU9MCtqYB5Y XAAWLE4TR0lDOBkQ aicoORIIOB9Nfz80
Nxs9J1JUNmcpWgAA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1024:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 24.71.232.17/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Revisiting NODE_BLOOM: Proposed BIP
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:25:54 -0000
--HB4mHL4PVvkpZAgW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 06:15:16PM -0400, Chris Pacia wrote:
> On Aug 21, 2015 2:07 AM, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
> > Also, as I mentioned, just look at the popularity of wallets such as
> > Mycelium that are not adopting bloom filters, but going with SPV
> > verification of block headers w/ lookup servers.
>=20
> Related I recently had a conversation with a Mycelium employee who told me
> they were considering moving to spv/bloom because of the server issues
> Andreas mentioned.
>=20
> I don't know any more about their plans, but I wouldn't assume the above
> statement to be correct.
That'd be a foolish design decision to move exclusively over; their
wallet was safe to use during the recent fork, unlike Android Wallet,
precisely because of their existing design.
In any case, regardless of whether we're wrong about the popularity
issue, I've yet to see any issues raised with implementing NODE_BLOOM
that will adversely affect such wallets - we've certainly got no
shortage of node capacity to go around.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000402fe6fb9ad613c93e12bddfc6ec02a2bd92f002050594d
--HB4mHL4PVvkpZAgW
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=KuAX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--HB4mHL4PVvkpZAgW--
|
