rich1.0npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 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>