Tim Ruffing [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2017-03-06 📝 Original message:On Mon, 2017-03-06 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2017-03-06
📝 Original message:On Mon, 2017-03-06 at 22:14 +0000, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> It would be a privacy leak to request only the specific timestamps,
> but I
> suppose many wallets lack even basic privacy to begin with.
>
> To address the bounds issue, I have specified that when from/to don't
> have an
> exact record, that the previous/next (respectively) is provided.
>
> Hopefully this addresses both concerns?
Yes, that solves it. You're right with the privacy concern however.
>
> > In the current draft the client or the server cannot specify
> > granularity. If the clients only wants one value per day but for an
> > entire year, then it has to perform many requests or download and
> > process a very large response.
>
> That's what the "timedelta" field solves, no?
> If you want one value per day, you'd put 86400.
Oh sure, I had overlooked that.
>
> > Also, I think it's okay that the type field allows for arbitrary
> user-
> > defined values, but it should also have some precisely defined
> values
> > (e.g. the mentioned low/high/open/close/typical).
> > For example, it's not clear currently what "low" means for a
> timestamp
> > (as opposed to a time span). Is it the low of the entire day or the
> low
> > since the previous record or something different?
>
> Is it not sufficient for the server to specify this in the
> description of the
> given currency-pair feed?
That works but a standardized way of indicating that piece of
information to the client is useful. Then the client can display a
"connection status" to the user, e.g., an "possible out-of-date"
warning like the warning sign in the Qt GUI when Bitcoin Core is
catching up the network.
Tim
📝 Original message:On Mon, 2017-03-06 at 22:14 +0000, Luke Dashjr wrote:
> It would be a privacy leak to request only the specific timestamps,
> but I
> suppose many wallets lack even basic privacy to begin with.
>
> To address the bounds issue, I have specified that when from/to don't
> have an
> exact record, that the previous/next (respectively) is provided.
>
> Hopefully this addresses both concerns?
Yes, that solves it. You're right with the privacy concern however.
>
> > In the current draft the client or the server cannot specify
> > granularity. If the clients only wants one value per day but for an
> > entire year, then it has to perform many requests or download and
> > process a very large response.
>
> That's what the "timedelta" field solves, no?
> If you want one value per day, you'd put 86400.
Oh sure, I had overlooked that.
>
> > Also, I think it's okay that the type field allows for arbitrary
> user-
> > defined values, but it should also have some precisely defined
> values
> > (e.g. the mentioned low/high/open/close/typical).
> > For example, it's not clear currently what "low" means for a
> timestamp
> > (as opposed to a time span). Is it the low of the entire day or the
> low
> > since the previous record or something different?
>
> Is it not sufficient for the server to specify this in the
> description of the
> given currency-pair feed?
That works but a standardized way of indicating that piece of
information to the client is useful. Then the client can display a
"connection status" to the user, e.g., an "possible out-of-date"
warning like the warning sign in the Qt GUI when Bitcoin Core is
catching up the network.
Tim