📅 Original date posted:2015-08-21
📝 Original message: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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000402fe6fb9ad613c93e12bddfc6ec02a2bd92f002050594d
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150821/fb815101/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2…a2np2
2023-06-07 17:37:38
in reply to nevent1q…ezqa
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Seen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 17:37:38Event JSON
{
"id": "d9ebee80b2466e46fe0945ffdf1f050dec0dfa7e50907d706194e1fd86f7cf4b",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686159458,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"24b0a1bf3dfc9fc9f3f6739b5fab50dd1ce2799fc8ef26378cae8652e75e5fc8",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"68d25cefe9c35ba1359203ef8a35726b503a4de6af40dc8b4645558122706550",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"905f29cc0a91b1227b531ae8d8419b0926baa4a18373f0c58693c8f32c26ffa4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-21\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 06:15:16PM -0400, Chris Pacia wrote:\n\u003e On Aug 21, 2015 2:07 AM, \"Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e Also, as I mentioned, just look at the popularity of wallets such as\n\u003e \u003e Mycelium that are not adopting bloom filters, but going with SPV\n\u003e \u003e verification of block headers w/ lookup servers.\n\u003e \n\u003e Related I recently had a conversation with a Mycelium employee who told me\n\u003e they were considering moving to spv/bloom because of the server issues\n\u003e Andreas mentioned.\n\u003e \n\u003e I don't know any more about their plans, but I wouldn't assume the above\n\u003e statement to be correct.\n\nThat'd be a foolish design decision to move exclusively over; their\nwallet was safe to use during the recent fork, unlike Android Wallet,\nprecisely because of their existing design.\n\nIn any case, regardless of whether we're wrong about the popularity\nissue, I've yet to see any issues raised with implementing NODE_BLOOM\nthat will adversely affect such wallets - we've certainly got no\nshortage of node capacity to go around.\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n00000000000000000402fe6fb9ad613c93e12bddfc6ec02a2bd92f002050594d\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 650 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150821/fb815101/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "633e07bc596b6c115518810d6b8f8fe1adb4dceef91bf635b34973e711b0a77fa88f44f3ae812c2908572c0ee413f608c6855a27cef7d940d74ef2b1cf6333b1"
}