From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 11:52:00 +0200
Message-ID: <29376397.dRe9PMdyPS@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQ4nfYrRasm7jwx4B86fNKb6NvpHy-Dt=3bfiaNt10snA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO3Pvs8ccTkgrecJG6KFbBW+9moHF-FTU+4qNfayeE3hM9uRrg@mail.gmail.com>
	<537fb7106e0387c77537f0b1279cbeca@cock.lu>
	<CAAS2fgQ4nfYrRasm7jwx4B86fNKb6NvpHy-Dt=3bfiaNt10snA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Compact Client Side Filtering for
	Light Clients
Precedence: list

On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 00:41:49 CEST Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev=20
wrote:
> Can someone make a case why saving no more than those figures would
> justify the near total loss of privacy that filtering gives?

=46irst, your figures are wrong and also fall out of the sky with no=20
justification. Can=E2=80=99t debunk something that is pure garbage.

Second, stating that a bloom filter is a "total loss of privacy" is equally=
=20
baseless and doesn=E2=80=99t need debunking.

> "Because they already do it" isn't a good argument when talking about
> a new protocol feature; things which already do BIP37 will presumably
> continue to already do BIP37.

I think you just made the case for completely rejecting this proposal based=
=20
on the fact that nobody will use it, BIP37 already exists.

Not sure if I agree with that, improvements are always useful and we should=
=20
be able to come up with replacements.
But arguing against a feature you don=E2=80=99t like, especiallyh one used =
by=20
millions every day, is a sad way to stiffle innovation, Greg.
=2D-=20
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel