Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E536D728 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:07:49 +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 3E389AA for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:07:49 +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 9E63F28E49 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 18:07:46 +0200 (CEST) From: Tom Zander To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 18:07:45 +0200 Message-ID: <2778650.T23JsbTI1Y@strawberry> In-Reply-To: <4052F361-966C-4817-9779-146D4B43D1FE@jonasschnelli.ch> References: <55482016.LADLl5KXAH@strawberry> <4052F361-966C-4817-9779-146D4B43D1FE@jonasschnelli.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:10:54 +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 16:07:50 -0000 On Monday, 19 June 2017 17:49:59 CEST Jonas Schnelli wrote: > Hi >=20 > > 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, > >=20 > > Why would it not be needed? Any SPV client (when used as a > > payment-receiver) requires this from a simple usability point of view. >=20 > I think many users would be willing ... > a) =E2=80=A6 to trade higher privacy (using client side filtering) for no= t having > the =E2=80=9Eincoming transaction=E2=80=9C feature b) =E2=80=93 if they w= ant 0-conf =E2=80=93 to fetch > all inved transactions You seem to misunderstand the usecase. If you send me a transaction, both of use are using our phones, then I need= =20 to be able to have immediate feedback on the transaction being broadcast on= =20 the network. This is not about zero-conf, this is simple seeing what is happening while= =20 it is happening. Additionally, when the transaction that is meant for my wallet is broadcast= ,=20 I want my SPV wallet to parse and check the actual transaction. It is not just to see that *something* was actually send, but also to be=20 able to see how much is being paid to me. Maybe If the transaction is marke= d=20 as RBF-able, etc. Really basic usability: provide information to your users when you can,=20 should they want to, and by default on. =2D-=20 Tom Zander Blog: https://zander.github.io Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel