summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/ff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorAdam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>2015-02-20 12:44:24 +0000
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2015-02-20 12:44:31 +0000
commit62c929c3c9153a8c3fbc9a74341c2604bffbd04e (patch)
tree5cb719a0e7161b43ff6800a18bb4a1debc21fd75 /ff
parent6a10464bbcb8c63d43272771175dd115cf46aa81 (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-62c929c3c9153a8c3fbc9a74341c2604bffbd04e.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-62c929c3c9153a8c3fbc9a74341c2604bffbd04e.zip
[Bitcoin-development] bloom filtering, privacy
Diffstat (limited to 'ff')
-rw-r--r--ff/3ad799068b9f14c1afbe9dc12bd1b6c9b3993688
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
+
+