Can somebody please unlock the BIP wiki page? I don't know why it was locked but it's stale. On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > Sorry, to clarify, these are test builds available here: > > > https://code.google.com/p/bitcoin-wallet/downloads/detail?name=bitcoin-wallet-2.39_bitcoinj0.7.apk&can=2&q= > > It's not on the Play store yet. It probably makes sense to release after > some more testing and after Bitcoin 0.8 comes out, as otherwise there's a > risk that 0.7 snapshot nodes will get overloaded. > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > >> Andreas has uploaded Android builds that use the new bloom filtering and >> peer selection code (also, dependency analysis of transactions). >> >> The performance gain is very cool. The app feels dramatically faster to >> start up and sync. Because the app syncs on charge when I opened it around >> lunchtime it had only 7 hours of data to sync (42 blocks) and it brought up >> 6 peer connections, found a 0.7.99 node and synced all in <2 seconds. That >> was on wifi. >> >> The next lowest hanging perf fruit is almost certainly to optimize disk >> accesses. Flash on Android devices seems to be much slower than laptop >> flash storage, and current bitcoinj is very inefficient in how it writes >> (one write per block header!). This matters a lot when doing fast catchup >> for first time users. >> >> The BIP is now a little bit stale, but only slightly. >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Matt Corallo wrote: >> >>> Actually, there is one more minor algorithmic change I would like to >>> make to the way the hash function is computed really quick before it >>> gets merged, I'll have that finished up by the end of today. >>> >>> Matt >>> >>> On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 11:43 +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: >>> > Matts latest code has been tested by Andreas and seems to work >>> > correctly. He had to extend the client a bit to refresh the filter >>> > every 25k blocks because even with the extra flag, eventually the >>> > filter degrades into uselessness, but it did still improve the >>> > situation quite a bit. >>> > >>> > Because it's unit tested, been reviewed by me several times, has an >>> > interoperable implementation that has also been tested by Andreas in a >>> > build of his smartphone app, I'm going to ACK the current code and >>> > request that it be merged in to 0.8. What do you say Gavin? >>> > >>> > The next step after that would be profiling. It's a big performance >>> > improvement for SPV clients already, but not as much as I anticipated. >>> > I suspect there's a simple bottleneck or missed optimization >>> > somewhere. But that can obviously come post-0.8 >>> >>> >>> >> >