Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B825B66 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:50:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from server3 (server3.include7.ch [144.76.194.38]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84565141 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:50:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by server3 (Postfix, from userid 115) id 2AB2B2D004CD; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 17:50:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [172.20.10.3] (unknown [213.55.211.7]) by server3 (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C6C702D00182; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 17:50:03 +0200 (CEST) From: Jonas Schnelli Message-Id: <4052F361-966C-4817-9779-146D4B43D1FE@jonasschnelli.ch> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5A79AE45-5654-4E54-82F6-809D69A1FC0B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 17:49:59 +0200 In-Reply-To: <55482016.LADLl5KXAH@strawberry> To: Tom Zander References: <537fb7106e0387c77537f0b1279cbeca@cock.lu> <55482016.LADLl5KXAH@strawberry> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FSL_HELO_NON_FQDN_1 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] 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 15:50:08 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_5A79AE45-5654-4E54-82F6-809D69A1FC0B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi > On Monday, 19 June 2017 14:26:46 CEST bfd--- via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> It's been debated if [filtering of] unconfirmed transactions are >> necessary, >=20 > Why would it not be needed? Any SPV client (when used as a = payment-receiver) > requires this from a simple usability point of view. I think many users would be willing ... a) =E2=80=A6 to trade higher privacy (using client side filtering) for = not having the =E2=80=9Eincoming transaction=E2=80=9C feature b) =E2=80=93 if they want 0-conf =E2=80=93 to fetch all inved = transactions /jonas --Apple-Mail=_5A79AE45-5654-4E54-82F6-809D69A1FC0B Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEyhopCNzi8TB0xizeHrd2uwPHki0FAllH8qcACgkQHrd2uwPH ki3NJQ/+PH00SBmeLrf0kmM4NWh/iR0cX7A2MBibvdXf9+LayHzTcyU1uLScA9XZ qz3Qh4DJcfYR+VzxhZ84NSdbacx2/F+ipvGnjdjcYAfsyu2Pg5qCcbrvjS5Of865 t+jiJhYoCgX3YAdKWeNjhTi9itbjIRFqPwITWVLOxLLLToy+yFqfktkmNM5kkyfi Zl6r+zEwCEkrIEEbQMwrpJU+kZaXJ8uxtByQHS+Bq/9Fzf0Hsp8dIsOeP2lIkswB jBpgQ4WC4qIUvUQ5Qbbrm34MQ/etycdjVWrUR7nVw/f/i/kMZJThf4O/zwK2Wia6 EYlESRAGloqauK0cFm9dO/daITEaqUYLee0BiutLNgkFB2qtHGG9HcMNKM3BhxaE Ysm8+BqBYTzM3FpQLH2wgsLmFIeP7C/WevnwaqPfmFsarsLnPGwcSg2zX1dWFApZ uYhd0+2azdVqppyrrINcuJvqpKUVLuy2IRDrdhOcBW+s+DJxEqTgCaXpXO7kMNUj MdWV5ZORLBhLfuE4MzqjUXcIK7JAZBpiGtV0tcA7dSoaMDI2mI8Ws4qVZAOLIQGm MZXWDW7wohKnC+mBANplS73pgu9K3PPPqyQ+En6okEvPjnpglJ+mYzuCaoE0qpYX zvJa4VOABldUG9jIlFuZQob9X++Il7b4SCSNW1cpxbXwl5lcajc= =GeNv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_5A79AE45-5654-4E54-82F6-809D69A1FC0B--