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
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pete@petertodd.org>) id 1W6ieN-0002xC-3c
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 24 Jan 2014 15:26:31 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
designates 62.13.148.99 as permitted sender)
client-ip=62.13.148.99; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
helo=outmail148099.authsmtp.net;
Received: from outmail148099.authsmtp.net ([62.13.148.99])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1W6ieL-0007ef-5U for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 24 Jan 2014 15:26:31 +0000
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
by punt18.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id s0OFQLlP040234;
Fri, 24 Jan 2014 15:26:21 GMT
Received: from petertodd.org (petertodd.org [174.129.28.249])
(authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id s0OFQIbx039071
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Fri, 24 Jan 2014 15:26:20 GMT
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 10:26:18 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Message-ID: <20140124152617.GA31017@petertodd.org>
References: <CAAS2fgQmsxjkQFSiCdeMoVMaqq5720KpUpdkKZOE+XytHsWw0w@mail.gmail.com>
<20140124090218.GA15398@savin>
<CANEZrP0MnXr4xjaMPg7v7vTiDQr-y7esvEBE=xk=Y0BUGXak9A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DocE+STaALJfprDB"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0MnXr4xjaMPg7v7vTiDQr-y7esvEBE=xk=Y0BUGXak9A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: e0a2190b-850b-11e3-b802-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aQdMdAYUElQaAgsB AmIbWlFeUlt7W2I7 ag1VcwRfa1RMVxto
VEFWR1pVCwQmQhx+ cH9nAFFydAxGf38+ ZEZmXHAVCUQrd0d0
QhxJHWgGN3phaTUc TRJQdwFJcANIexZF O1F6ACIKLwdSbGoL
NQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpY RgYVKF8UXXNDNDc9 W1gMGi9nB0AYXCw5
KxFuI1IQBksKKUgp WQAA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 174.129.28.249/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1W6ieL-0007ef-5U
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bait for reusable addresses
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, 24 Jan 2014 15:26:31 -0000
--DocE+STaALJfprDB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:26:19PM +0000, Mike Hearn wrote:
> >
> > brittleness. The real world experience is that users, or to be exact
> > wallet authors, turn down SPV privacy parameters until bloom filters
> > have almost no privacy in exchange for little bandwidth usage.
>=20
>=20
> That's not fundamental though, it just reflects that the only
> implementation of this is used on a wide range of devices and doesn't yet
> have any notion of bandwidth modes or monitoring. It can and will be
> resolved at some point.
Resolved for some users, not for all. The underlying trade-off will
always be there; less bandwidth makes it harder, more addresses to check
makes it harder; an HD wallet used properly without re-using addresses
will quickly lead to a fairly full bloom filter unless addresses are
expired, and expiration leads to scenarios where funds can be lost.
I think we need to provide users with better options than that.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000064ddd387d7548c97c4d42f4df1008d180f306c59e0440f4f
--DocE+STaALJfprDB
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJS4oYZAAoJEBmcgzuo5/CFk4sIAKJy2OexQLpH0909T8VjPv8J
2pMClUfxDt4AncSkkyBBzAweuYhcwBUUjb9k3voNU9nTbnFOx8FC8SFmO6BhnPmC
MgpikqmMzewyiY6cWQ1VtUM41hGNnlMBJhhrEUC2HsFw4whNlF3aP9DYg/dvNFnh
/Z6ggqVN6gi8pGnouk7PvtT7StCzhW89tHXkiZALmtBHfpAVLEil1FKEY1w2acbc
sX6GEDZpx4QVorUHBpBet9U8myUl8/THLY9s6S5jAFOUPKsVYXC5DHEYbZ2ntZWj
ZUOepzT6u1pFKwmB5Dd3hyoQrh6RxHt/fVspUoCObxaaIvsrcIV6r1K4ddFAGJ0=
=qNgT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--DocE+STaALJfprDB--
|
