{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2018-06-02\n📝 Original message:On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Tamas Blummer via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Years of experience implementing wallets with BIP 37\n\npretty much us that all these filter things are a total waste of time.\nBIP37 use is nearly dead on the network-- monitor your own nodes to\nsee the actual use of the filters: it's very low.  I see under average\nof 1 peer per day using it.\n\nMoreover the primary complaint from users about BIP37 vs the\nalternatives they're choosing over it (electrum and web wallets) is\nthat the sync time is too long-- something BIP158 doesn't improve.\n\nSo if we were going to go based on history we wouldn't bother with on\nP2P at all.   But I think the history's lesson here may mostly be an\naccident, and that the the non-use of BIP37 is  due more to the low\nquality and/or abandoned status of most BIP37 implementing software,\nrather than a fundamental lack of utility.   Though maybe we do find\nout that once someone bothers implementing a PIR based scanning\nmechanism (as electrum has talked about on and off for a while now)\nwe'll lose another advantage.\n\nBIP37 also got a number of things wrong-- what went into the filters\nwas a big element in that (causing massive pollution of matches due to\nuseless data), along with privacy etc.  This kind of approach will\nhave the best chances if it doesn't repeat the mistakes... but also\nit'll have the best chances if it has good security, and getting SPV-\nequivalent security will require committing the filters, but\ncommitting them is a big step because then the behaviour becomes\nconsensus normative-- it's worth spending a few months of extra\niteration getting the design as good as possible before doing that\n(which is what we've been seeing lately)."}