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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1WsxfQ-0000tG-EI
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 06 Jun 2014 17:11:00 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.53 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.53; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-la0-f53.google.com;
Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com ([209.85.215.53])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WsxfO-0002Yc-BO
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 06 Jun 2014 17:11:00 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id ty20so1704760lab.40
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 06 Jun 2014 10:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.5.135 with SMTP id s7mr3108710las.55.1402074651535; Fri,
06 Jun 2014 10:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.235.72 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140606170524.GA29195@savin>
References: <20140606081933.GA29458@savin>
<20140606084852.GA30247@netbook.cypherspace.org>
<20140606090441.GA19256@savin>
<20140606104543.GA31085@netbook.cypherspace.org>
<20140606164639.GB14891@savin>
<CAAS2fgTKiPMPOazNTPL8+3Ov1xOj=H+yK3u+sd_pe=nyDSPgTw@mail.gmail.com>
<20140606170524.GA29195@savin>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:10:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgT3CfJ9Lf2H2BYVfUeJoF0RBi+EMmAghj5G2vJPtahmjg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1WsxfO-0002Yc-BO
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bloom bait
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 17:11:00 -0000
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> Again, you *don't* have to use brute-force prefix selection. You can
> just as easily give your peer multiple prefixes, each of which
> corresponds at least one address in your wallet with some false positive
> rate. I explained all this in detail in my original blockchain data
> privacy writeup months ago.
I'm not trying to pick nits about all the options, I just found it
surprising that you were saying that data published in a super public
manner is no different than something used between nodes.
> I explained all this in detail in my original blockchain data privacy wri=
teup months ago.
Communication is a two way street, Adam and I (and others) are
earnestly trying=E2=80=94 that we're not following your arguments may be a
suggestion that they need to be communicated somewhat differently.
I'm still failing to see the usefulness of having any prefix filtering
for DH-private outputs. It really complicates the security story=E2=80=94 i=
n
particular you don't know _now_ what activities will turn your prior
information leaks into compromising ones retrospectivelly, and doesn't
seem at very necessary for scanning performance.
|
