MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 16:08:03 +0300
From: bfd@cock.lu
To: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
In-Reply-To: <29376397.dRe9PMdyPS@strawberry>
References: <CAO3Pvs8ccTkgrecJG6KFbBW+9moHF-FTU+4qNfayeE3hM9uRrg@mail.gmail.com>
	<537fb7106e0387c77537f0b1279cbeca@cock.lu>
	<CAAS2fgQ4nfYrRasm7jwx4B86fNKb6NvpHy-Dt=3bfiaNt10snA@mail.gmail.com>
	<29376397.dRe9PMdyPS@strawberry>
Message-ID: <3d4e50fe9f582066d1d6de0565132b5b@cock.lu>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.3
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Compact Client Side Filtering for
 Light Clients
Precedence: list

On 2017-06-20 12:52, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Second, stating that a bloom filter is a "total loss of privacy" is 
> equally
> baseless and doesn’t need debunking.
> 

"On the Privacy Provisions of Bloom Filters in Lightweight Bitcoin 
Clients"

> We show analytically and empirically that the reliance on Bloom filters 
> within existing SPV clients leaks considerable information about the 
> addresses of Bitcoin users. Our results show that an SPV client who 
> uses a modest number of Bitcoin addresses (e.g., < 20) risks revealing 
> almost all of his addresses.

https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/763.pdf