From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D19F7B62 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 12:35:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:08:50 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from cock.li (cock.li [185.100.85.212]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D44119B for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 12:35:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cock.lu; s=mail; t=1497875206; bh=YG27NMDx0TKzHDdmPTEbTeKHjpQvqwjjgTa84XTvsVU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Ig5uBQliDXoxxm8cxpKGck6e5ZNbMEevXkQFWFl25JLqDLv441ufOMmlhQ2NOW6kr 4nWrsFaorXGVqKv/IskXAZXOwhuanNIXIxo8rY+HjBhVATUp7MdGl/j/mkgQcYu9cN L7Qq0WSI15BEPsxlEYnRsxwxtnXyZE+YGCWE6jg3dRclEuAwmcuqkKs7+hZuVopsuT ecu6bUx+4FFcnBItCUXN1uX6GTHiNSrC4+HSqu1+BsXDTI/lBisZ8WtjWeACxKoFTN YcBhcqlkxlBopI/tj1m8xPmLL8jTsQHeB0HwHE554FpNwXtes01LvpAD0h/AX6R9A1 huQ4wnpeFJ0rQ== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:26:46 +0100 From: bfd@cock.lu To: Andreas Schildbach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <537fb7106e0387c77537f0b1279cbeca@cock.lu> X-Sender: bfd@cock.lu User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.3 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 12:49:57 +0000 Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Compact Client Side Filtering for Light Clients X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 12:35:41 -0000 Several times. It's been debated if unconfirmed transactions are necessary, methods of doing more private filtering have been suggested, along with simply not filtering unconfirmed transactions at all. My collected data suggests that there is very little use of BIP37 at present, based on incoming connections to nodes I know end up in the DNS seed responses (no "SPV" clients do their own peer management). On 2017-06-19 12:58, Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I'm not sure if this has been brought up elsewhere in this thread. > > This proposal doesn't seem to be a complete replacement of BIP37: It > doesn't provide a filter for unconfirmed transactions like BIP37 does. > > That means that most light clients will continue to use BIP37 even if > they may use this BIP as a supplement. Otherwise users would not get > timely notification of incoming payments any more. > > > On 06/01/2017 09:01 PM, Olaoluwa Osuntokun via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> Hi y'all, >> >> Alex Akselrod and I would like to propose a new light client BIP for >> consideration: >> * >> https://github.com/Roasbeef/bips/blob/master/gcs_light_client.mediawiki >> [...] > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev