On Monday, March 06, 2017 9:54:16 PM Tim Ruffing wrote: > Having the rate at the time of payment is indeed very useful, yes. > However that requires just a single value per payment, and there is no > query that tells the server "give me the value closest to timestamp t" > or similar. > Of course the client can download and keep a large part of history and > extract the information on its own but I can imagine that not every > clients wants to do that, and also the client does not know in advance > the bounds (from, to) that it must query.
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? > 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. > 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? Luke _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
