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 720268EA for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:15:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f181.google.com (mail-ig0-f181.google.com [209.85.213.181]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 098BB11D for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:15:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igui7 with SMTP id i7so23572949igu.0 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:15:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=V3hpMGJrXuc03igyu8+NCvoXy4ifG/Je2Q4Zizwy/3Q=; b=RfCqBVndEHBZFa306eRl+R3iefetRxNSo2TlxwNwEw3f8OcAaxmJm9sdR3pOtlAkEb 7NEIq8acTz+bRPHHSYQ1ZKDHVpTj2ZXx0/qWOd52jWWf00SLXh9J5y3iiNorH/VeS7Lk 9/5EFc2zI0FzHop9+mMb6vaLFcRC3WJ+veGhn0VOjOlyzxj2BZ8is231LmzfyRgiV7AA /w4Ep3IG0OAw2ZXewXtzMayGV5L5hbP0Gov1S0+5zqlqwb8A1FW3rTcO9208d1TgvZy/ g/qU0FTQUefFm8Trr3Nk7Sjkz+og9w8hlYZegitl0x+UNGY+OS/9dBmlmEKAN6r/CM76 idCg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.80.14 with SMTP id n14mr4462703igx.30.1440195316416; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:15:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.144.196 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:15:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.144.196 with HTTP; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:15:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150821060716.GA31674@muck> References: <55D6AD19.10305@mattcorallo.com> <20150821055534.GA27259@muck> <20150821060716.GA31674@muck> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 18:15:16 -0400 Message-ID: From: Chris Pacia To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0149c0c63e08b5051dd99a2f X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Revisiting NODE_BLOOM: Proposed BIP X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:15:17 -0000 --089e0149c0c63e08b5051dd99a2f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Aug 21, 2015 2:07 AM, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@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. --089e0149c0c63e08b5051dd99a2f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8


On Aug 21, 2015 2:07 AM, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@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.

--089e0149c0c63e08b5051dd99a2f--