đź“… Original date posted:2019-07-22
đź“ť Original message:On Monday 22 July 2019 13:25:25 Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > I also think as long as we don't have an alternative, we should improve
> > the current filtering for segwit. E.g. testing the scripts themselves
> > and each scriptPubKey spent by any input against the filter would do,
> > and it also fixes the main privacy issue with server-side filtering
> > (wallets have to add two items per address to the filter).
>
> I think the consensus among protocol developers is (please speak up), that
> BIP37 (public server based tx filtering) – in general – was a conceptual
> mistake. Maybe extending it further is the wrong step, especially when
> promising alternatives like BIP158 (neutrino) are around.
Neutrino is very controversial, and NOT less trustful than bloom filters.
It also uses significantly more bandwidth.
It seems a better approach is to add Stratum (Electrum) support, and to limit
usage of all pseudo-SPV protocols to trusted peers.
> The fact that nobody cared about extending it for SW may also underline that
> BIP37 is seen as a conceptual mistake and/or "low interest in further
> extensions“.
Eric Lombrozo added segwit support. While it was never reviewed for Core, it
has been included and supported in Knots since v0.15.1. As I understand it,
his mSIGNA wallet also makes usage of the feature.
Luke
Luke Dashjr [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tf…rfq0n
2023-06-07 18:19:36
in reply to nevent1q…5ry9
Author Public Key
npub1tfk373zg9dnmtvxnpnq7s2dkdgj37rwfj3yrwld7830qltmv8qps8rfq0nPublished at
2023-06-07 18:19:36Event JSON
{
"id": "50ada94a206594a9b7c9f16bf4d98e66f7355a24f12ac15a20766341fafe07d9",
"pubkey": "5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803",
"created_at": 1686161976,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"9984a06ec701a8f6ac2773e4a62741a4d9d15af90b1fce9ee03180b7fd819eec",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"605f1fdb70a766f93fe6ab206796a132e80aff09aea310ad6669cdddb28070be",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"9a463e0fab8963b013698c15a0f2449d19c97f3b88458e5874095b5006df9a0c"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2019-07-22\n📝 Original message:On Monday 22 July 2019 13:25:25 Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e I also think as long as we don't have an alternative, we should improve\n\u003e \u003e the current filtering for segwit. E.g. testing the scripts themselves\n\u003e \u003e and each scriptPubKey spent by any input against the filter would do,\n\u003e \u003e and it also fixes the main privacy issue with server-side filtering\n\u003e \u003e (wallets have to add two items per address to the filter).\n\u003e\n\u003e I think the consensus among protocol developers is (please speak up), that\n\u003e BIP37 (public server based tx filtering) – in general – was a conceptual\n\u003e mistake. Maybe extending it further is the wrong step, especially when\n\u003e promising alternatives like BIP158 (neutrino) are around.\n\nNeutrino is very controversial, and NOT less trustful than bloom filters.\nIt also uses significantly more bandwidth.\n\nIt seems a better approach is to add Stratum (Electrum) support, and to limit \nusage of all pseudo-SPV protocols to trusted peers.\n\n\u003e The fact that nobody cared about extending it for SW may also underline that\n\u003e BIP37 is seen as a conceptual mistake and/or \"low interest in further\n\u003e extensions“. \n\nEric Lombrozo added segwit support. While it was never reviewed for Core, it \nhas been included and supported in Knots since v0.15.1. As I understand it, \nhis mSIGNA wallet also makes usage of the feature.\n\nLuke",
"sig": "70102c684e2870f07d666314f70f0471c17a294416243c58a7f4279d7ef7aa550086d50d46aeb537259c224053127d2393efac51082b4005ec420a0b274a93c3"
}