{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 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"}