MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: adam@cypherspace.org
In-Reply-To: <3d4e50fe9f582066d1d6de0565132b5b@cock.lu>
References: <CAO3Pvs8ccTkgrecJG6KFbBW+9moHF-FTU+4qNfayeE3hM9uRrg@mail.gmail.com>
	<537fb7106e0387c77537f0b1279cbeca@cock.lu>
	<CAAS2fgQ4nfYrRasm7jwx4B86fNKb6NvpHy-Dt=3bfiaNt10snA@mail.gmail.com>
	<29376397.dRe9PMdyPS@strawberry>
	<3d4e50fe9f582066d1d6de0565132b5b@cock.lu>
From: Adam Back <adam.back@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 18:20:53 +0100
Message-ID: <CALqxMTE7Qv33uWn3eWbQVOg4gGwep=WRquS-bJDvTyagnA1bZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: bfd@cock.lu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Compact Client Side Filtering for
 Light Clients
Precedence: list

Also Jonas Nick gave a fairly comprehensive presentation on privacy
leaks in bitcoin protocol including SPV and bloom query problem
specifics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DHScK4pkDNds

Adam


On 20 June 2017 at 14:08, bfd--- via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On 2017-06-20 12:52, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>
>> Second, stating that a bloom filter is a "total loss of privacy" is
>> equally
>> baseless and doesn=E2=80=99t need debunking.
>>
>
> "On the Privacy Provisions of Bloom Filters in Lightweight Bitcoin Client=
s"
>
>> We show analytically and empirically that the reliance on Bloom filters
>> within existing SPV clients leaks considerable information about the
>> addresses of Bitcoin users. Our results show that an SPV client who uses=
 a
>> modest number of Bitcoin addresses (e.g., < 20) risks revealing almost a=
ll
>> of his addresses.
>
>
> https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/763.pdf
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev