diff options
author | Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> | 2015-02-20 12:44:24 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-02-20 12:44:31 +0000 |
commit | 62c929c3c9153a8c3fbc9a74341c2604bffbd04e (patch) | |
tree | 5cb719a0e7161b43ff6800a18bb4a1debc21fd75 /ff | |
parent | 6a10464bbcb8c63d43272771175dd115cf46aa81 (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-62c929c3c9153a8c3fbc9a74341c2604bffbd04e.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-62c929c3c9153a8c3fbc9a74341c2604bffbd04e.zip |
[Bitcoin-development] bloom filtering, privacy
Diffstat (limited to 'ff')
-rw-r--r-- | ff/3ad799068b9f14c1afbe9dc12bd1b6c9b39936 | 88 |
1 files changed, 88 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/ff/3ad799068b9f14c1afbe9dc12bd1b6c9b39936 b/ff/3ad799068b9f14c1afbe9dc12bd1b6c9b39936 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..7b721b6ec --- /dev/null +++ b/ff/3ad799068b9f14c1afbe9dc12bd1b6c9b39936 @@ -0,0 +1,88 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <adam.back@gmail.com>) id 1YOmwZ-0000gu-FK + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:44:31 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com + designates 209.85.216.51 as permitted sender) + client-ip=209.85.216.51; envelope-from=adam.back@gmail.com; + helo=mail-qa0-f51.google.com; +Received: from mail-qa0-f51.google.com ([209.85.216.51]) + by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) + (Exim 4.76) id 1YOmwX-0005lT-OI + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:44:31 +0000 +Received: by mail-qa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id i13so12114045qae.10 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Fri, 20 Feb 2015 04:44:24 -0800 (PST) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.140.232.5 with SMTP id d5mr23667546qhc.78.1424436264364; + Fri, 20 Feb 2015 04:44:24 -0800 (PST) +Sender: adam.back@gmail.com +Received: by 10.96.150.233 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 04:44:24 -0800 (PST) +Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:44:24 +0000 +X-Google-Sender-Auth: RmjMFhEAHEvoHmgfjT-OjRjf7PQ +Message-ID: <CALqxMTE2doZjbsUxd-e09+euiG6bt_J=_BwKY_Ni3MNK6BiW1Q@mail.gmail.com> +From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> +To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 +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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider + (adam.back[at]gmail.com) + -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record + 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: 1YOmwX-0005lT-OI +Subject: [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 12:44:31 -0000 + +I saw there was some discussion on this topic on the bitcoinj list. + +(I dont think I can post there without subscribing probably.) + +Someone had posted about the lack of privacy provision from the +current implementation parameters and real-world factors similar to +described in this academic paper + +http://eprint.iacr.org/2014/763.pdf + +Mike had posted a detailed response on the topic on why its complex +and becomes bandwidth inefficient to improve it usefully. + +https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bitcoinj/Ys13qkTwcNg/9qxnhwnkeoIJ + +The basic summary of which I think is that its not even intended to +provide any practical privacy protection, its just about compacting +the query for a set of addresses. + +So I was wondering what about changing to committing a bloom filter of +the addresses in the block. Its seems surprising no one thought of it +that way before (as it seems obvious when you hear it) but that seems +to address the privacy issues as the user can fetch the block bloom +filters and then scan it in complete privacy. (Someone appeared on +bitcoin wizards IRC a while back and made this observation.) + +From there its a question of fetching the candidate TXOs. + +Am I missing anything? + +Adam + + |