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
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EF5B83D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 05:42:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail148099.authsmtp.net (outmail148099.authsmtp.net
[62.13.148.99])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E50DAB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 05:42:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
by punt18.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t7L5gTZh054391;
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 06:42:29 +0100 (BST)
Received: from muck ([24.114.27.112]) (authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t7L5gKg2011738
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Fri, 21 Aug 2015 06:42:28 +0100 (BST)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 22:42:19 -0700
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>,
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Message-ID: <20150821054219.GB18176@muck>
References: <55D6AD19.10305@mattcorallo.com>
<20150821053819.GA18176@muck>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dc+cDN39EJAMEtIO"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150821053819.GA18176@muck>
X-Server-Quench: 692447a8-47c7-11e5-b398-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdAMUGUATAgsB AmMbW1JeVF97W2o7 aQ5PbARZfEhJQQRr
UldMSlVNFUssBmAE UWVJUBlzdgJFcDB1 Y0VgEHZSXkB+chd1
X0pTRmobZGY1bX1N U0lQagNUcgZDfk5E bwQuUz1vNG8XDSg5
AwQ0PjZ0MThBHWxv Tx8MNlMOQEAEVhgb az01NxEIOmhXDx0p
KAQhMVMQVGwwCi0A
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 24.114.27.112/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Revisiting NODE_BLOOM: Proposed BIP
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 05:42:31 -0000
--dc+cDN39EJAMEtIO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:38:19PM -0700, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Motivation
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >=20
> > BIP 37 did not specify a service bit for the bloom filter service, thus
> > implicitly assuming that all nodes that serve peers data support it.
> > However, the connection filtering algorithm proposed in BIP 37, and
> > implemented in several clients today, has been shown to provide little
> > to no privacy, as well as being a large DoS risk on some nodes. Thus,
> > allowing node operators to disable connection bloom filtering is a
> > much-needed feature.
>=20
> I'd reference that paper on bloom filters re: the "little to no privacy"
> issue. There's also a post in the bitcoinj mailing list somewhere IIRC
> talking about the default settings, and how they don't provide any
> privacy.
Oh, and we should also point out that Bloom filters have scaling issues,
as each application of the filter has to scan the whole blockchain -
with future blocksize increases these issues increase, in some proposals
quite dramatically. The underlying idea also conflicts with some
proposals to "shard" the blockchain, again suggesting that we need a bit
to handle future upgrades to more scalable designs.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000402fe6fb9ad613c93e12bddfc6ec02a2bd92f002050594d
--dc+cDN39EJAMEtIO
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=5hyw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--dc+cDN39EJAMEtIO--
|
