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
|
Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A8378DC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:52:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx-out01.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A19D8E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:52:04 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx04.mykolab.com (mx04.mykolab.com [10.20.7.102])
by mx-out01.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68AE36197A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 20 Jun 2017 11:52:01 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 11:52:00 +0200
Message-ID: <29376397.dRe9PMdyPS@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQ4nfYrRasm7jwx4B86fNKb6NvpHy-Dt=3bfiaNt10snA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO3Pvs8ccTkgrecJG6KFbBW+9moHF-FTU+4qNfayeE3hM9uRrg@mail.gmail.com>
<537fb7106e0387c77537f0b1279cbeca@cock.lu>
<CAAS2fgQ4nfYrRasm7jwx4B86fNKb6NvpHy-Dt=3bfiaNt10snA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 12:57:02 +0000
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 09:52:05 -0000
On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 00:41:49 CEST Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev=20
wrote:
> Can someone make a case why saving no more than those figures would
> justify the near total loss of privacy that filtering gives?
=46irst, your figures are wrong and also fall out of the sky with no=20
justification. Can=E2=80=99t debunk something that is pure garbage.
Second, stating that a bloom filter is a "total loss of privacy" is equally=
=20
baseless and doesn=E2=80=99t need debunking.
> "Because they already do it" isn't a good argument when talking about
> a new protocol feature; things which already do BIP37 will presumably
> continue to already do BIP37.
I think you just made the case for completely rejecting this proposal based=
=20
on the fact that nobody will use it, BIP37 already exists.
Not sure if I agree with that, improvements are always useful and we should=
=20
be able to come up with replacements.
But arguing against a feature you don=E2=80=99t like, especiallyh one used =
by=20
millions every day, is a sad way to stiffle innovation, Greg.
=2D-=20
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
|
