{"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 02:01:06AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:\n\u003e I don't see any link to data backing up \"Bloom filter usage has declined\n\u003e significantly\"\n\u003e \n\u003e Is there actual data showing this feature's use is declining or\n\u003e non-existent?\n\nI run a number of high speed nodes and while I don't have historical\nlogs handy over time, I've noticed a drop from about %5-%10 SPV clients\nat any one time to closer to %1 (Matt: you have a few TB of logs saved\ndon't you?)\n\nAlso, as I mentioned, just look at the popularity of wallets such as\nMycelium that are not adopting bloom filters, but going with SPV\nverification of block headers w/ lookup servers.\n\nAnyway, look at the analogous implementation of NODE_GETUTXO's, which\nhelpfully has provided the infrastructure for wallets that need bloom\nfilters to find appropriate nodes to connect too - we certainely aren't\nseeing any shortages of nodes for those wallets to use.\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/20150820/d339991b/attachment-0001.sig\u003e"}