Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E110BA2 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:36:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ot0-f182.google.com (mail-ot0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D1E48E for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:36:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ot0-f182.google.com with SMTP id y47so49601191oty.0 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 09:36:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=awsomnet-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=J7TEwkssbMFL8KbTrqGQx5JDG2uKMvUhETJPDgmalSY=; b=CibbJBv5qfVXWjHmxqbJndw3bzNX02mggM80dHKw7yJEdQk5ktda2iNTJF9QVkZi4c 13VjCZoofhOJ9ykYL1ahDduWJ5Y555VMbxr9n0Xbq3X7m5h12D5vo9VgNTMl6V9fUOQK A/uEMUqvJRfYn75ktNHLPvz+xFsCwI1Z4NB+I8FrBmXP6/66bkQ8czMTSBX4qgPD/sNo zP10Wav+YlRn85fi0cL1fjs34Q9WaXni1/i/Gce1gXhe3tyZhh3OCI0lB0+nf6Ir16Em c366KAHZdNbCqMYJrkVOBPZ8rNHQhgsmOVz5atKDNe1csKPBeT0uA0ECP/esVARhWSXA IlYA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=J7TEwkssbMFL8KbTrqGQx5JDG2uKMvUhETJPDgmalSY=; b=CaA7C+Z4KJmmQZWJb6rDVvwm0LxP1hV61QxNdqvicWVgH5XvdLRtWoffE/NvproleH KtWf4//fq72MESAIeYP77NpD3P72Ow3NKdHVYtv49/iLRsmp6dbbuBEWw+84ldzXv2xn xUqvALOiSdhu1tUz+faA9Obrihy5t+nCmW3xOLQik4Ls0Gfurh00XS//NH0AHdufhroQ Dvre9tTNwX4hcWKkH+j3g2oAekrW3DZl/vqHntgYXqCYEStemauOjWnQR4EKOFzs1T3o +hkoHWhUYvKuERcTfb7G6omjUDcrO9GMv+B6jhRMCNdLEAJdXm5NOP0SfP0K2IXoR5X8 yolw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOyXjiPAi/IlBtsbOniw80TOmN5qtsz0EowZVzMtkxqM8YE/0JOw 9qgJs9NCMLiUq4ZB0s2jEdve9DygiwJdDeY= X-Received: by 10.157.43.10 with SMTP id o10mr3048893otb.73.1497890202511; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 09:36:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.98.70 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 09:36:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [18.85.34.36] In-Reply-To: References: <537fb7106e0387c77537f0b1279cbeca@cock.lu> <55482016.LADLl5KXAH@strawberry> <4052F361-966C-4817-9779-146D4B43D1FE@jonasschnelli.ch> From: adiabat Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 12:36:41 -0400 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Compact Client Side Filtering for Light Clients 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: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:36:46 -0000 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