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
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCFAC127B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 2 Jun 2018 00:22:27 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f66.google.com (mail-vk0-f66.google.com
[209.85.213.66])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AFC9108
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 2 Jun 2018 00:22:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f66.google.com with SMTP id q135-v6so14093308vkh.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 01 Jun 2018 17:22:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
:subject:to:cc;
bh=/XrVhyDtoRBfe0+JJLH9aod+BBRkTCpv2z97wOGWGZg=;
b=SXD6hREToTLTZdg/lvCrw8FIf3i6osFqJPCTKv+vxW9sWCy3+YISm9jH8me+pbKWk1
AS6ByVJsOfxueNzfuJoRmhDjNWeY0PHvxlEi8oPR2QbI0JSQzPqeuTfKcB5n2rQRbCGo
APFfXTv4YhN06JZ79N+04AxOa6HQQ6AgIh2dgJKRfpWsi3TRCudWYsacKnfnwxpOMHFx
3LOqdpTCz4wW6FMVgGWi6BdDc7UG/nMs5M7Jx7XY0PQcezly6sJIDcgY9KaB4sAATPJr
HaJDVBPdUA592/wTd1IithRlckE2wwamMY0KAhBXo0sSLfdD4ejv7lRJqvxS62E/dPMR
aBnA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from
:date:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=/XrVhyDtoRBfe0+JJLH9aod+BBRkTCpv2z97wOGWGZg=;
b=pGfqXUAYHIskuDsgNzx5KXbH6vhdTOWNp4hdt69gKxlAxltuRhvNS/IZJt5LVc2Ben
6KXDRFJ/P3j04ynP2gbzyIeumXvx4YiT9kiV9VlksiUG2ubeACBs635bQNr8N1Ac55yf
86tWSwOJwLKkv3MvA3FLVy9WQ90mEAW8SLYiReDahzKE2PYlXmPbSAKO+25vEAxvWKyM
HwxJBumcqxNhqkfeV4QPPbYp1E9JtfB9Y8FQdmJxNi9NqrEM0wG6aVZzh6BSKXMc4XdT
noIpceHyAJyA6Od3LrHb3aQRenIysLpSSeJ1VnGuht5XkgoIVHb3Bkxg/MMFkkppdn5T
3InA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwdwf9ykhreKEaHj+6IUcX1iI4Ayuvi2L8hSERCcWyD0gGhpeDR2
nls1jnsgzYIQGoBch1tMI/Y7EnwFKuv7UsTE+No=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKK9fN0cotALi9nlXzQ5c99vqfEziKacE5dffu3miNdMYWLcsQztHuXIkakOTTn4s5VXeP5bm79yJXrDEiBaAq8=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:9c6:: with SMTP id 189-v6mr8537657vkj.74.1527898946521;
Fri, 01 Jun 2018 17:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com
Received: by 2002:a67:5193:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP;
Fri, 1 Jun 2018 17:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAO3Pvs_0qCZbRCfL8EJw6gzWjZeXWcJrtg27g_SJ7+PkYTHg6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d43c6082-1b2c-c95b-5144-99ad0021ea6c@mattcorallo.com>
<CAAS2fgRF-MhOvpFY6c_qAPzNMo3GQ28RExdSbOV6Q6Oy2iWn1A@mail.gmail.com>
<22d375c7-a032-8691-98dc-0e6ee87a4b08@mattcorallo.com>
<CAAS2fgR3QRHeHEjjOS1ckEkL-h7=Na56G12hYW9Bmy9WEMduvg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADZtCShLmH_k-UssNWahUNHgHvWQQ1y638LwaOfnJEipwjbiYg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgQLCN_cuZ-3QPjCLfYOtHfEk=SenTn5=y9LfGzJxLPR3Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CADZtCSjYr6VMBVQ=rx44SgRWcFSXhVXUZJB=rHMh4X78Z2eY1A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAO3Pvs9K3n=OzVQ06XGQvzNC+Aqp9S60kWM9VRPA8hWTJ3u9BQ@mail.gmail.com>
<c23a5346-9f99-44f0-abbf-d7e7979bf1d8@gmail.com>
<CAO3Pvs_MA4TtgCCu1NgCBjK2bZRN+rKnGQJN6m4yTrViBXRiPA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAD3i26BibcaMdbQv-j+Egz_1y0GuhzepBp5ATNpj=Qv8hi1TVA@mail.gmail.com>
<CADZtCShAYpbN=4qNoX5c8yd1j08+mEZzG8gZwcHrj2suY0mb9w@mail.gmail.com>
<CADZtCShYnM3A949H18V2+BArA-K9J+cDkd=rX8xRn0+0js5CwA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgTXS5Tains7dfe_Rc9JxR6M=NuFW9UtieRELm+6N2uNog@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFfwr8F+ghYb2HYEgC7Lh7Z-ytNE7EABr6cxiVXYhWLk-TPO7A@mail.gmail.com>
<CADZtCShDzPK_jqeOrK4XBoB2uriU9c9T8Dm7By-8ew3XOoAeQg@mail.gmail.com>
<7E4FA664-BBAF-421F-8C37-D7CE3AA5310A@gmail.com>
<F87D7069-0FDC-4572-B02B-398A2A455935@gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgT716PiP0ucoASxryM9y+s9H2z06Z0ToaP1xT3BozAtNw@mail.gmail.com>
<CADZtCSguto2z6Z9CykymxnCokqo1G=sW0Ov0ht+KcD+KMnYyow@mail.gmail.com>
<CAO3Pvs-YDzfRqmyJ85wTH0ciccjCvkm5stGyP_tVGGna=PMv3A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAO3Pvs9p5COiS_7Jbj1r2iAKTEdXUcnVTRzL27c3=CeuB9WDTQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgSyVi0d_ixp-auRPPzPfFeffN=hsWhWT5=EzDO3O+Ue1g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAO3Pvs_0qCZbRCfL8EJw6gzWjZeXWcJrtg27g_SJ7+PkYTHg6A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2018 00:22:25 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: aYGUFLsn7dXCRUM6a54M0gy0-DY
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTs+aKyiL8Kg_AZk=Mdh6896MEg=KHa6ANAZO7unsGEsg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Olaoluwa Osuntokun <laolu32@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 158 Flexibility and Filter Size
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2018 00:22:27 -0000
On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 12:01 AM, Olaoluwa Osuntokun <laolu32@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A typical network attacker (e.g. someone on your lan or wifi segmet, or
>> someone who has compromised or operates an upstream router) can be all of
>> your peers.
>
> This is true, but it cannot make us accept any invalid filters unless the
> attacker is also creating invalid blocks w/ valid PoW.
I wish that were the true, but absent commitments that wouldn't be the
case unless you were always downloading all the blocks-- since you
wouldn't have any sign that there was something wrong with the
filter-- and downloading all the blocks would moot using the filters
in the first place. :)
Or have I misunderstood you massively here?
For segwit originally I had proposed adding additional commitments
that would make it possible to efficiently prove invalidity of a
block; but that got stripped because many people were of the view that
the "assume you have at least one honest peer who saw that block and
rejected it to tell you that the block was invalid" security
assumption was of dubious value. Maybe it's more justifiable to make
use of a dubious assumption for a P2P feature than for a consensus
feature? Perhaps, I'd rather have both filter types from day one so
that things not implementing the comparison techniques don't get the
efficiency loss or the extra work to change filter types for a
consensus one.
[I think now that we're much closer to a design that would be worth
making a consensus committed version of than we were a few months ago
now, since we are effectively already on a second generation of the
design with the various improvements lately]
|
