Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.149.101 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.149.101; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail149101.authsmtp.com; 
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 05:04:41 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Message-ID: <20140606090441.GA19256@savin>
References: <20140606081933.GA29458@savin>
	<20140606084852.GA30247@netbook.cypherspace.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+HP7ph2BbKc20aGI"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140606084852.GA30247@netbook.cypherspace.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] NODE_BLOOM service bit
Precedence: list


--+HP7ph2BbKc20aGI
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 10:48:52AM +0200, Adam Back wrote:
> Advertising NODE BLOOM as a service sounds good.
>=20
> But the critique of bloom filters, I am not so sure prefix filters are
> better.  Prefix filters offer questionable privacy tradeoffs in my
> opinion. Same problem as with stealth address proposed use of
> prefixes.

That's assuming you're doing the proposed prefix brute forcing - if you
don't do that they have privacy equal or better than bloom filters, but
with better scalability. In particular that better scalability lets you
efficiently query multiple servers for blockchain data, only giving up
info on a subset of the addresses in your wallet to each server. This
can be a significant improvement to bloom filters if your attacker is
running logging nodes to try to, say, deanonymize CoinJoin transactions.

> All for scalability, efficiency and decentralization but not ideally at t=
he
> expense of nuking privacy.  The effects on privacy are cumulative, and
> affect everyone not just the user.  Same pattern of local decision, global
> effect as with reused addresses.

Indeed. But again, remember that the existing systems suck too;
prefix-brute forcing is a engineering tradeoff implementable with
existing and well understood technology.

Now if you want to come up with something better and write code, please
do! I'm sure the math exists; what doesn't exist is robust and well
tested code in multiple languages. Stealth addresses at least have been
designed so that future blockchain filter upgrades can be added in a
backwards compatible way.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000003a68ee16d702ca5dd5547fb4aead910a004747cb06241dd6

--+HP7ph2BbKc20aGI
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
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==
=i3Mu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--+HP7ph2BbKc20aGI--