1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1YOriT-0005FX-Vh
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:50:18 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.171 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.171; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f171.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f171.google.com ([209.85.213.171])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YOriT-0001oy-9G
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:50:17 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f171.google.com with SMTP id h15so4831437igd.4
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:50:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.79.84 with SMTP id q20mr13122599ick.48.1424454612054;
Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:50:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.107.16.80 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:50:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP32M-hSU-a1DA5aTQXsx-6425sTeKW-m-cSUuXCYf+zuQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALqxMTE2doZjbsUxd-e09+euiG6bt_J=_BwKY_Ni3MNK6BiW1Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP32M-hSU-a1DA5aTQXsx-6425sTeKW-m-cSUuXCYf+zuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:50:11 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSEqYNiGFk0pZ-hT_0zR7_Nh1OUvyfFd-DE=a-cdzgWwQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1YOriT-0001oy-9G
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] bloom filtering, privacy
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:50:18 -0000
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
> And then what? So you know the block matches. But with reasonable FP rates
> every block will match at least a few transactions (this is already the case
This approach needs a filter set with a lower FP rate. It doesn't
depend on having a high FP rate for privacy (which is good, since
counting on filter false positives seems to more or less fail to
deliver actual privacy in any case.)
Larger filters mean a somewhat higher baseline bandwidth, though when
users do not reuse addresses and have more addresses than there are
txouts in the block the gap is narrower.
> Ah, I see, I didn't catch that this scheme relies on UTXO commitments
This is talking about a committed bloom filter. Not a committed UTXO set.
|
