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
|
Return-Path: <bfd@cock.lu>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE163B9E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:08:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from cock.li (cock.li [185.100.85.212])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB2B6E9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:08:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cock.lu; s=mail;
t=1497964084; bh=mUt88oOcfJCkz7jhXkqsnEpPH/dchMWJ/MiIbp9B6U4=;
h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=UEQc36weNCjFxwG93RJau4coGeDsQoLS/F9puVVD6KimXe6ho2X1Wfbyf573XN2RQ
ZuMuAKvwk8GalgfIMOj844Rysgk0h0ABIuhUa66Kcp+PcX6/f8UzUq2Gtvwdu69Ofp
CCS4lxwrqKUQOxm5FYkMisjR14u2aXpXR030OYQS1vsyFErDV0cRnlmIZwllxmIqPs
Q+KNqbmhibPlzwaTFKsxmkyuB5Y0VeTnXJq0EIclZqm0gpU6+MmyVLmmorO3eXX2qr
JzhBQHQHm2PpdclxGgLX0TjhKotS+EIIGviPuvDXj1sFjMoA1HywuHQ0j+/+coAnWY
04SvTrICrnpIQ==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 16:08:03 +0300
From: bfd@cock.lu
To: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
In-Reply-To: <29376397.dRe9PMdyPS@strawberry>
References: <CAO3Pvs8ccTkgrecJG6KFbBW+9moHF-FTU+4qNfayeE3hM9uRrg@mail.gmail.com>
<537fb7106e0387c77537f0b1279cbeca@cock.lu>
<CAAS2fgQ4nfYrRasm7jwx4B86fNKb6NvpHy-Dt=3bfiaNt10snA@mail.gmail.com>
<29376397.dRe9PMdyPS@strawberry>
Message-ID: <3d4e50fe9f582066d1d6de0565132b5b@cock.lu>
X-Sender: bfd@cock.lu
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.3
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:40:19 +0000
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Compact Client Side Filtering for
Light Clients
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:08:09 -0000
On 2017-06-20 12:52, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Second, stating that a bloom filter is a "total loss of privacy" is
> equally
> baseless and doesn’t need debunking.
>
"On the Privacy Provisions of Bloom Filters in Lightweight Bitcoin
Clients"
> We show analytically and empirically that the reliance on Bloom filters
> within existing SPV clients leaks considerable information about the
> addresses of Bitcoin users. Our results show that an SPV client who
> uses a modest number of Bitcoin addresses (e.g., < 20) risks revealing
> almost all of his addresses.
https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/763.pdf
|
