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
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
|
Return-Path: <rx@awsomnet.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E110BA2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:36:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ot0-f182.google.com (mail-ot0-f182.google.com
[74.125.82.182])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D1E48E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:36:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ot0-f182.google.com with SMTP id y47so49601191oty.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 19 Jun 2017 09:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=awsomnet-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=J7TEwkssbMFL8KbTrqGQx5JDG2uKMvUhETJPDgmalSY=;
b=CibbJBv5qfVXWjHmxqbJndw3bzNX02mggM80dHKw7yJEdQk5ktda2iNTJF9QVkZi4c
13VjCZoofhOJ9ykYL1ahDduWJ5Y555VMbxr9n0Xbq3X7m5h12D5vo9VgNTMl6V9fUOQK
A/uEMUqvJRfYn75ktNHLPvz+xFsCwI1Z4NB+I8FrBmXP6/66bkQ8czMTSBX4qgPD/sNo
zP10Wav+YlRn85fi0cL1fjs34Q9WaXni1/i/Gce1gXhe3tyZhh3OCI0lB0+nf6Ir16Em
c366KAHZdNbCqMYJrkVOBPZ8rNHQhgsmOVz5atKDNe1csKPBeT0uA0ECP/esVARhWSXA
IlYA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to;
bh=J7TEwkssbMFL8KbTrqGQx5JDG2uKMvUhETJPDgmalSY=;
b=CaA7C+Z4KJmmQZWJb6rDVvwm0LxP1hV61QxNdqvicWVgH5XvdLRtWoffE/NvproleH
KtWf4//fq72MESAIeYP77NpD3P72Ow3NKdHVYtv49/iLRsmp6dbbuBEWw+84ldzXv2xn
xUqvALOiSdhu1tUz+faA9Obrihy5t+nCmW3xOLQik4Ls0Gfurh00XS//NH0AHdufhroQ
Dvre9tTNwX4hcWKkH+j3g2oAekrW3DZl/vqHntgYXqCYEStemauOjWnQR4EKOFzs1T3o
+hkoHWhUYvKuERcTfb7G6omjUDcrO9GMv+B6jhRMCNdLEAJdXm5NOP0SfP0K2IXoR5X8
yolw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOyXjiPAi/IlBtsbOniw80TOmN5qtsz0EowZVzMtkxqM8YE/0JOw
9qgJs9NCMLiUq4ZB0s2jEdve9DygiwJdDeY=
X-Received: by 10.157.43.10 with SMTP id o10mr3048893otb.73.1497890202511;
Mon, 19 Jun 2017 09:36:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.98.70 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 09:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [18.85.34.36]
In-Reply-To: <B27FF856-9281-479C-BFE2-D594F46C5C44@jonasschnelli.ch>
References: <CAO3Pvs8ccTkgrecJG6KFbBW+9moHF-FTU+4qNfayeE3hM9uRrg@mail.gmail.com>
<oi8e8k$g56$1@blaine.gmane.org>
<537fb7106e0387c77537f0b1279cbeca@cock.lu>
<55482016.LADLl5KXAH@strawberry>
<4052F361-966C-4817-9779-146D4B43D1FE@jonasschnelli.ch>
<oi8sdn$ksl$1@blaine.gmane.org>
<B27FF856-9281-479C-BFE2-D594F46C5C44@jonasschnelli.ch>
From: adiabat <rx@awsomnet.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 12:36:41 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKEeUhha8FMYqO79veAyZyg0Cc6S-_1a4=k4=6WdC7+Juk1A1Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.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: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:36:46 -0000
This has been brought up several times in the past, and I agree with
Jonas' comments about users being unaware of the privacy losses due to
BIP37. One thing also mentioned before but not int he current thread
is that the entire concept of SPV is not applicable to unconfirmed
transactions. SPV uses the fact that miners have committed to a
transaction with work to give the user an assurance that the
transaction is valid; if the transaction were invalid, it would be
costly for the miner to include it in a block with valid work.
Transactions in the mempool have no such assurance, and are costlessly
forgeable by anyone, including your ISP. I wasn't involved in any
debate over BIP37 when it was being written up, so I don't know how
mempool filtering got in, but it never made any sense to me. The fact
that lots of lite clients are using this is a problem as it gives
false assurance to users that there is a valid but yet-to-be-confirmed
transaction sending them money.
-Tadge
|
