Any significant improvement to the watch-only address limit?

+1 vote
I'm building an application where there would be a 1:1 relationship between my users and watch-only addresses, as each watch-only address would represent a single user in my application. So I'm trying to figure out if I need multiple nodes, each with a finite number (1000-5000) of addresses, and thus multiple servers, each with 4-6 nodes depending on the server's specification, to avoid this degradation in performance in a scenario where I expect a high volume of users and a high volume of transactions.

Or should I perhaps consider another solution altogether?
related to an answer for: Watch Only Address Limit
asked Jun 26, 2017 by rbumbury

1 Answer

+1 vote
Best answer
Yes, the new database-driven wallet is much more efficient, and caches all unspent transaction outputs belonging to the wallet's addresses (including watch-only addresses) in memory. So checking an address's balance or sending a transaction with a specified from address is quick, although it still requires a scan of the in-memory unspent transaction outputs. You should be fine with at least 10,000 addresses per node, but my recommendation would be to try a natural workload and see how MultiChain performs for you.
answered Jun 27, 2017 by MultiChain
selected Jun 27, 2017 by rbumbury
That's a huge improvement. And it definitely makes sense to cache the unspent transaction outputs of all a wallet's addresses in memory. Awesome work, guys.