Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97BA2E7C for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:02:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com (mail-wm0-f65.google.com [74.125.82.65]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16701108 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:02:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f65.google.com with SMTP id j15-v6so8139180wme.0 for ; Sat, 02 Jun 2018 15:02:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=3HLeGjlq2Hjg/OVqXl189ycBkkRvgrFz+4CxAUxu6A4=; b=jrF5Kbf9tzJwMcMuNWjWQItkICj1j+2KgoNLrSBECHwndTAEsr9akCcAIeNow67npq kmXcJhK6tolPGW1HH9RgeXNuR/A3PKDe6tNbgNKFp+mjcHZx50uoTV5vi95mbEzrNwer AeDMOKw8GO+Y7X0k6l4OFToT9LST9bEPVVl9GDWIZFkSIYnIMtHjIc6PCZKDvKRZYn+g hEB/W64KCSjQKMFS4kD//y+0PDosef1EyXDOPVQ7m/A/GkWSovYjwFIu4hU02Ax+FWrW +SdUcCDvYETWzdTC7l9YmlRcIfqKN2y0/dQ/0WepXUqZLlAyeHqvALNRMBHPGp18vjem Tm9g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=3HLeGjlq2Hjg/OVqXl189ycBkkRvgrFz+4CxAUxu6A4=; b=kAi7vMhJXZ1+Ul3hPdI3bTOtZM7nUx+u372fXBWB4qScHY/3ZC30RG3lQVJcSiaxXi xthSdQaBKG9xz/4Z43Nz4zQeyI76TTdYf6dD9ZQNzKzGmriZEu0KlPxq2dWX5VOUi7Av I74syAwNquhpVh633b1F3Iv3euMF96fZUlszUUENokcPDIE6YFO7vc63I8hxK8DZHimj f3W67cltVX7SoW/sx6twWnn9fac2i2uijE+6KUmVwfAHFBaero0E4vqFos/3ZHk8z0nt a0IhCvswar4nYFBfEPvVwfHJWgMQL1TXOREynwb2iNgpj67aq/fJwaMEPygJ8G/HI2Io 4k3Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwcbrAM/950RoaqiUP+0Ga5mHQvim9R3GHdiH5RD88LTe5e/qSM2 LfHGelEbQmllULlLdPXAY+Y= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKK5QBTAyTLO3XPK74uXna88tG/hXsYsP7heqWPq8U6tJgvbrfawaa2eh5yZZTbNvcQ0BNJ8Kw== X-Received: by 2002:a50:db8c:: with SMTP id p12-v6mr18016953edk.298.1527976934698; Sat, 02 Jun 2018 15:02:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.54.109.146] ([88.128.80.153]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f11-v6sm16032257ede.45.2018.06.02.15.02.12 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 02 Jun 2018 15:02:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Tamas Blummer Message-Id: <343A3542-3103-42E9-95B7-640DFE958FFA@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C03E14EE-DD9A-4D54-87CA-8CD8EBF9977D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2018 00:02:11 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20180602124157.744x7j4u7dqtaa43@email> To: "David A. Harding" , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: <7E4FA664-BBAF-421F-8C37-D7CE3AA5310A@gmail.com> <20180602124157.744x7j4u7dqtaa43@email> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:55:40 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 158 Flexibility and Filter Size X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2018 22:02:16 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_C03E14EE-DD9A-4D54-87CA-8CD8EBF9977D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Without block commitment mobiles would have to use trusted filter = provider or implement a complex data hungry algorithm and still remain = as insecure as with BIP 37. Years of experience implementing wallets with BIP 37 taught us that an = outpoint + output script filter is useful. Committing such a filter to = the block can not be an error. We could roll this out on P2P prior to a soft fork adding the = commitment, but I would not expect its use to pick up before that. Therafter BIP 37 could be rightfully decommissioned, herby offering both = security and privacy enhancement at modest data cost. Tamas Blummer > On Jun 2, 2018, at 14:41, David A. Harding via bitcoin-dev = wrote: >=20 > On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 07:02:38PM -0700, Jim Posen via bitcoin-dev = wrote: >> Without the ability to verify filter validity, a client would have to = stop >> syncing altogether in the presence of just one malicious peer, which = is >> unacceptable. >=20 > I'm confused about why this would be the case. If Alice's node > generates filters accurately and Mallory's node generates filters > inaccurately, and they both send their filters to Bob, won't Bob be = able > to download any blocks either filter indicates are relevant to his > wallet? --Apple-Mail=_C03E14EE-DD9A-4D54-87CA-8CD8EBF9977D Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEE6YNJViYMM6Iv5f9e9nKRxRdxORwFAlsTE+MACgkQ9nKRxRdx ORw9Egf/Q+Wrzfz2DaUMOYGoQMmRfPVtNwTnPjespySulOzavCIyaGboUohgFfBq GY6OtWkaLnZeI36H9F/en4v2retRtSF1JH3oI4AifN+lRZHrRqOvDKCcmbCWbDfk u4cDk2PZ8FaP/og/OYvXYw0lHz/j/SkUB25pKhs2xHXC72Ct9VdBEwYLNYcnwE9q /1WmL2b6AIi3kQsrRSkd0flZB6rh0zmKM40cSXU6WexDJ/N+oWg4eV7stYk5PIvs EOupcPr8G6f+W9po8Hwt9HiQfcT0Q9qBDfbSqfc3CKRedCapZzrE7zuhiyIIQ0zB jt0115n94InSL2GUpYV+1Tr14bu4+w== =6jsr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_C03E14EE-DD9A-4D54-87CA-8CD8EBF9977D--