rich1.0npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydhttps://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2014-03-27 📝 Original message:> > One issue that I have is bandwidth: Electrum (and mycelium) cannot > watch as many addresses as they want, because this will create too > much traffic on the servers. (especially when servers send utxo merkle > proofs for each address, which is not the case yet, but is planned) > This is surprising and the first time I've heard about this. Surely your constraint is CPU or disk seeks? Addresses are small, I find it hard to believe that clients uploading them is a big drain, and mostly addresses that are in the lookahead region won't have any hits and so won't result in any downloads? This constraint is not so important for bloom-filter clients. Bloom filters are a neat way to encode addresses and keys but they don't magically let clients save bandwidth. A smaller filter results in less upload bandwidth but more download (from the wallets perspective). So I'm worried if you think this will be an issue for your clients: I haven't investigated bandwidth usage deeply yet, perhaps I should. FWIW the current bitcoinj HDW alpha preview pre-gens 100 addresses on both receive and change branches. But I'm not sure what the right setting is. We also have to consider latency. The simplest implementation from a wallets POV is to step through each transaction in the block chain one at a time, and each time you see an address that is yours, calculate the next ones in the chain. But that would be fantastically slow, so we must instead pre-generate a larger lookahead region and request more data in one batch. Then you have to recover if that batch ends up using all the pre-genned addresses. It's just painful. > My opinion, as far as Electrum is concerned, is that merchant accounts > should behave differently from regular user accounts: While merchants > need to generate an unlimited number of receiving addresses, it is also > acceptable for them to have a slightly more complex wallet recovery > procedure > Maybe. I dislike any distinction between users and merchants though. I don't think it's really safe to assume merchants are more sophisticated than end users. > but also because we want fully automated synchronization between different > instances of a wallet, using only no other source of information than > the blockchain. > I think such synchronization won't be possible as we keep adding features, because the block chain cannot sync all the relevant data. For instance Electrum already has a label sync feature. Other wallets need to compete with that, somehow, so we need to build a way to do cross-device wallet sync with non-chain data. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140327/41aaeab9/attachment.html>