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
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
|
Return-Path: <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42649BC7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 18:29:04 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail.bluematt.me (mail.bluematt.me [192.241.179.72])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5EC623A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 18:29:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.17.0.1] (gw.vpn.bluematt.me [162.243.132.6])
by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 47257560E5;
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 18:29:01 +0000 (UTC)
To: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
References: <55D6AD19.10305@mattcorallo.com>
<20150824152955.GA6924@amethyst.visucore.com>
<55DB566F.1010702@mattcorallo.com> <20150824180044.GA5729@muck>
<55DB5D49.4050800@mattcorallo.com>
<CABr1YTceCUPSwUe9M2zUSXcB1qvtmq5PP6=ZBzaw19=VgO79GQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Message-ID: <55DB626B.8010808@mattcorallo.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 18:28:59 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABr1YTceCUPSwUe9M2zUSXcB1qvtmq5PP6=ZBzaw19=VgO79GQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Revisiting NODE_BLOOM: Proposed BIP
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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, 24 Aug 2015 18:29:04 -0000
On 08/24/15 18:15, Eric Lombrozo wrote:
> It would be very useful to not only be able to switch filtering on and
> off globally...but to be able to switch on a per-connection basis.
I'm not sure what your reasoning for this is? If your concern is that
someone starts DoS attacking you with bloom-based attacks, you should
just disconnect them as an attacker, and announce that you support bloom
filtering globally. If you want to serve your own nodes, then I dont
think this BIP doesnt allow you to do so, just needs an implementation.
> But
> then again, perhaps it would be smarter to ditch the whole bloom filter
> thing in favor of an actual client/server architecture with proper
> authentication and access controls.
Trustless (and non-privacy-losing) proposals welcome :)
> The RPC was supposed to be this client/server architecture...but in
> practice it sucks so bad for doing anything beyond administering a node
> instance you fully control yourself that I eschewed it entirely in my
> wallet design.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 11:07 AM Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
> BIP 111 was assigned, pull request (with the proposed changes) available
> at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/183
>
> Matt
>
> On 08/24/15 18:00, Peter Todd wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 05:37:51PM +0000, Matt Corallo via
> bitcoin-dev wrote:
> >> Its more of a statement of "in the future, we expect things to happen
> >> which would make this an interesting thing to do, so we state
> here that
> >> it is not against spec to do so". Could reword it as "NODE_BLOOM is
> >> distinct from NODE_NETWORK, and it is legal to advertise
> NODE_BLOOM but
> >> not NODE_NETWORK (though there is little reason to do so now, some
> >> proposals may make this more useful in the future)"?
> >
> > ACK
> >
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
|
