Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.148.102 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.148.102; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail148102.authsmtp.net; 
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 13:05:24 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgTKiPMPOazNTPL8+3Ov1xOj=H+yK3u+sd_pe=nyDSPgTw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bloom bait
Precedence: list


--x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 09:58:19AM -0700, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> > transactions against. Where they differ is that bloom filters has O(n)
> > scaling, where n is the size of a block, and prefix filters have O(log =
n)
> > scaling with slightly(1) higher k. Again, if you *don't* use brute forc=
ing
> > in conjunction with prefixes they have no different transactional graph
> > privacy than bloom filters,
>=20
> Huh? How are you thinking that something that gets put in transactions
> and burned forever into the blockchain that lets you (statically) link
> txout ownership is "no different" from something which is shared
> directly with a couple peers, potentially peers you trust and which
> are run by yourself or your organization?

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.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000029d945c3832c7f4afabce11e6cb1c27b6f5e8c0f2bbb356c

--x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
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==
=xgp5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn--