Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1W6fq5-00053r-Ts
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 24 Jan 2014 12:26:25 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.169 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.169; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ob0-f169.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1W6fq5-0005AG-0d
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 24 Jan 2014 12:26:25 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id wo20so3537268obc.28
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Fri, 24 Jan 2014 04:26:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.47.228 with SMTP id g4mr9596505oen.10.1390566379372; Fri,
	24 Jan 2014 04:26:19 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.99.112 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 04:26:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20140124090218.GA15398@savin>
References: <CAAS2fgQmsxjkQFSiCdeMoVMaqq5720KpUpdkKZOE+XytHsWw0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140124090218.GA15398@savin>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 12:26:19 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: nl9MsBU86X4qwz4XUfk3IOiVwlc
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0MnXr4xjaMPg7v7vTiDQr-y7esvEBE=xk=Y0BUGXak9A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2fcf614498904f0b67789
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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
	(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	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: 1W6fq5-0005AG-0d
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bait for reusable addresses
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, 24 Jan 2014 12:26:26 -0000

--001a11c2fcf614498904f0b67789
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> brittleness. The real world experience is that users, or to be exact
> wallet authors, turn down SPV privacy parameters until bloom filters
> have almost no privacy in exchange for little bandwidth usage.


That's not fundamental though, it just reflects that the only
implementation of this is used on a wide range of devices and doesn't yet
have any notion of bandwidth modes or monitoring. It can and will be
resolved at some point.

--001a11c2fcf614498904f0b67789
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">brittleness. The real world experience is that u=
sers, or to be exact<br>

wallet authors, turn down SPV privacy parameters until bloom filters<br>
have almost no privacy in exchange for little bandwidth usage.</blockquote>=
<div><br></div><div>That&#39;s not fundamental though, it just reflects tha=
t the only implementation of this is used on a wide range of devices and do=
esn&#39;t yet have any notion of bandwidth modes or monitoring. It can and =
will be resolved at some point.=C2=A0</div>
</div></div></div>

--001a11c2fcf614498904f0b67789--