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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1VBC84-0002Ui-ID
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 18 Aug 2013 23:11:24 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
designates 62.13.148.93 as permitted sender)
client-ip=62.13.148.93; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
helo=outmail148093.authsmtp.net;
Received: from outmail148093.authsmtp.net ([62.13.148.93])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1VBC82-00059A-Gy for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 18 Aug 2013 23:11:24 +0000
Received: from mail-c226.authsmtp.com (mail-c226.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.226])
by punt14.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id r7INBFGi008971;
Sun, 18 Aug 2013 23:11:15 GMT
Received: from savin (76-10-178-109.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.178.109])
(authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id r7INBAY9014308
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Mon, 19 Aug 2013 00:11:12 +0100 (BST)
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 19:11:09 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130818231109.GB23974@savin>
References: <20130818025932.GA372@savin>
<CANEZrP2jONtRJ6oF1YqKJB9nm1HcMkfz_yzeNshEWqD-5fdNiA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T2Jz1LUvKP38pMRGt6Vp5USzCUQL_F-pqsMsVygVzhiiQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="K8nIJk4ghYZn606h"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2Jz1LUvKP38pMRGt6Vp5USzCUQL_F-pqsMsVygVzhiiQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: 7a0afeb6-085b-11e3-98a9-0025907ec6c5
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aQdMdwsUGUATAgsB AmUbW1ReUVx7WGA7 bAxPbAVDY01GQQRq
WVdMSlVNFUsqBmV/ dG93WxlzcwZGcDBx ZUZmVj5cDUQrIxMv
RFNUHWhUeGZhPWMC WUgJfh5UcAFPdx9C PwN5B3ZDAzANdhES
HhM4ODE3eDlSNilR RRkIIFQOdA4tORIR cDomOhIKVWckf00A
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1020:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 76.10.178.109/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1VBC82-00059A-Gy
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] NODE_BLOOM BIP
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: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 23:11:24 -0000
--K8nIJk4ghYZn606h
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 08:22:10AM +1000, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> Mike pointed out exactly the reason I oppose a NODE_BLOOM service bit: I
> also think it is a bad idea to start making various bits and pieces of the
> protocol optional.
> It is bad for privacy (easier to fingerprint nodes) and bad for
> decentralization (fewer nodes support your required feature set). And eve=
ry
> bit you add can give you an exponential number of combinations your QA te=
am
> should test.
Mike's and others have been talking about persistent node-specific
identifiers, and after all at this level there are IP addresses;
fingerprinting nodes is trivial.
> I'd say the same thing about NODE_TRANSACTION ("I don't know about blocks,
> have and NODE_BLOCK bits.
We need options so peopl can contribute to relaying and the health of
the network - these edge cases are going to be tested anyway by people
like me deciding to disable bloom filtering.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
--K8nIJk4ghYZn606h
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJSEVSNAAoJECSBQD2l8JH7X2oH/1CQwYkR7NsArhHVGcuTKiKv
1Jb9XEH8PplqzSdAaLCunHNQxTiMrn+Zw/WrVS7ZatlfAohId+T6NPshlw5hTEPh
yh7jGVQq9PR3S9yh8/bDm3YBJjRuCSslj6LlbWfJA2PdMpHjclSWKIB7ucx5AciE
02Ax2HwFsiAHQbtBwhiv4BGJGFvXapb/jMpkjzA3rfGg4xyxWxCMaqKl8H/H4WQg
v/kY0aC5QtVC+UoIOwMwJZYSRjcNa8iiXHVlq5bDbJ4u446LkS6ff1vkHrXM1SPF
C7OUD4koaj2aRvnrPdQHHoOB32pLCjwba8q8tmlZVyIKQC10WhN0uL5K+p3qhVs=
=P6cF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--K8nIJk4ghYZn606h--
|
