Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2016-02-16 📝 Original message:On Tuesday, February 16, ...
📅 Original date posted:2016-02-16
📝 Original message:On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 8:20:26 PM Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> # The feefilter message is defined as a message containing an int64_t where
> pchCommand == "feefilter"
What happened to extensibility? And why waste 64 bits for what is almost
certainly a small number?
> # The fee filter is additive with a bloom filter for transactions so if an
> SPV client were to load a bloom filter and send a feefilter message,
> transactions would only be relayed if they passed both filters.
This seems to make feefilter entirely useless for wallets?
Luke
Published at
2023-06-07 17:49:11Event JSON
{
"id": "789f9da0e74e2f98062f094e738d03038443acb9a647ee2c75c44d1a8f945f4e",
"pubkey": "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803",
"created_at": 1686160151,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f76e2becbfe733698230f3abcc57efd3b02370c3c0af6e9d5741c130177d6401",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"71d6ba86100cfeb2e029406aef1156ff40989694b0bf09a85b25cd198ba8e31b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"78aa6925095b629d95a9e79aed6ed9da0973239bc6eedf11af42240f0e1d755c"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-02-16\n📝 Original message:On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 8:20:26 PM Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e # The feefilter message is defined as a message containing an int64_t where\n\u003e pchCommand == \"feefilter\"\n\nWhat happened to extensibility? And why waste 64 bits for what is almost \ncertainly a small number?\n\n\u003e # The fee filter is additive with a bloom filter for transactions so if an\n\u003e SPV client were to load a bloom filter and send a feefilter message,\n\u003e transactions would only be relayed if they passed both filters.\n\nThis seems to make feefilter entirely useless for wallets?\n\nLuke",
"sig": "43e867c9032ef648131c758b4e9d8f3974332c624beefeb5ac450d5a1e59589f859404b8946ad3ede589d8af7427bc30019809b3943d6f020727cf7a14d39f17"
}