To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
From: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 22:49:17 +0200
Message-ID: <oi9dc8$iv3$1@blaine.gmane.org>
References: <CAO3Pvs8ccTkgrecJG6KFbBW+9moHF-FTU+4qNfayeE3hM9uRrg@mail.gmail.com>
	<oi8e8k$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>
	<CAKEeUhha8FMYqO79veAyZyg0Cc6S-_1a4=k4=6WdC7+Juk1A1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/52.1.1
In-Reply-To: <CAKEeUhha8FMYqO79veAyZyg0Cc6S-_1a4=k4=6WdC7+Juk1A1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Compact Client Side Filtering for
	Light Clients
Precedence: list

Most SPV wallets make it quite clear that unconfirmed transactions are
just that.


On 06/19/2017 06:36 PM, adiabat via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 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
>