You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
There are some naming problems in electrum and esplora code.
scan should mean without a keychain
scan_with_keychain should be the name of the one that scans with a keychain
Same applies to update_tx_graph_without_keychain and update_tx_graph in esplora (which I would likewise rename to scan and scan_with_keychain).
The problem with the current naming is that it makes it seem scan (with a keychain) is the simple default and that scan_without_keychain is the exception. But scanning with a keychain (stop_gap) is very inefficient and should only be used when restoring from seedwords. Mutiny wallet caused a lowkey denial of service attack on mempool.space because they were always scanning with keychain.
it needs to be documented on scan_with_keychain that it should be used sparingly and explain the circumstances where it should be used.
I would remove all the other arguments from scan_with_keychain other than the keychain_spks in both esplora and electrum. This emphasizes the special case that it should be used for.
Perhaps we should change scan to sync instead since that's the nomenclature we have elsewhere.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
There are some naming problems in electrum and esplora code.
scan
should mean without a keychainscan_with_keychain
should be the name of the one that scans with a keychainSame applies to
update_tx_graph_without_keychain
andupdate_tx_graph
in esplora (which I would likewise rename toscan
andscan_with_keychain
).The problem with the current naming is that it makes it seem
scan
(with a keychain) is the simple default and thatscan_without_keychain
is the exception. But scanning with a keychain (stop_gap) is very inefficient and should only be used when restoring from seedwords. Mutiny wallet caused a lowkey denial of service attack on mempool.space because they were always scanning with keychain.scan_with_keychain
that it should be used sparingly and explain the circumstances where it should be used.scan_with_keychain
other than thekeychain_spks
in both esplora and electrum. This emphasizes the special case that it should be used for.scan
tosync
instead since that's the nomenclature we have elsewhere.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: