To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <71d822e413ac457a530e1c367811cc24@cock.lu>
	<20160511200648.GQ20063@mcelrath.org>
	<20160511202933.GR20063@mcelrath.org>
From: Leo Wandersleb <leo@LeoWandersleb.de>
Openpgp: id=FAE4D5168E9EF9F104AA1B2D6B9A1F0CB7C20812
Message-ID: <307a1ca0-5554-a14e-fd3b-aace7d7c2233@LeoWandersleb.de>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 23:07:29 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
	Icedove/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160511202933.GR20063@mcelrath.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="rG9Xq5TKBKPiPVai09PRBRfpIl6eWTV11"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Committed bloom filters for improved wallet
 performance and SPV security
Precedence: list

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--rG9Xq5TKBKPiPVai09PRBRfpIl6eWTV11
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

gmaxwell just made me aware of this mail thread [0]. Some days ago I had
independently and naively started implementing "something similar" [1].

My version totally ignored the commitment and signing part but I'm pretty=
 sure
that 12GB is overkill. My code is currently broken and I have no time to =
work on
it much but I thought it might be helpful to chime in.

At this point in time the difference between 80GB and 3GB (as my current =
1.5GB
of only outputs would suggest if I had covered the inputs) or even 12GB m=
akes
the difference of being able to store it on a phone, vs. not being able t=
o. 80GB
"compressed" to 3GB is not that bad at all. Unfortunately, with segWit th=
is will
be worse, with the higher transaction count per MB.

Regards,

Leo

[0]
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4v28jl/how_have_fungiblity_prob=
lems_affected_you_in/d5ux6aq
[1] https://github.com/Giszmo/TransactionFinder

On 05/11/2016 10:29 PM, Bob McElrath via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Eerrrr....let me revise that last paragraph.  That's 12 *GB* of filters=
 at
> today's block height (at fixed false-positive rate 1e-6.  Compared to b=
lock
> headers only which are about 33 MB today.  So this proposal is not real=
ly
> compatible with such a wallet being "light"...
>
> Damn units...
>
> Bob McElrath via bitcoin-dev [bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org] wr=
ote:
>> I like this idea, but let's run some numbers...
>>
>> bfd--- via bitcoin-dev [bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org] wrote:
>>> A Bloom Filter Digest is deterministically created of every block
>> Bloom filters completely obfuscate the required size of the filter for=
 a desired
>> false-positive rate.  But, an optimal filter is linear in the number o=
f elements
>> it contains for fixed false-positive rate, and logarithmic in the fals=
e-positive
>> rate.  (This comment applies to a RLL encoded Bloom filter Greg mentio=
ned, but
>> that's not the only way)  That is for N elements and false positive ra=
te
>> \epsilon:
>>
>>     filter size =3D - N \log_2 \epsilon
>>
>> Given that the data that would be put into this particular filter is *=
already*
>> hashed, it makes more sense and is faster to use a Cuckoo[1] filter, c=
hoosing a
>> fixed false-positive rate, given expected wallet sizes.  For Bloom fil=
ters,
>> multiply the above formula by 1.44.
>>
>> To prevent light clients from downloading more blocks than necessary, =
the
>> false-positive rate should be roughly less than 1/(block height).  If =
we take
>> the false positive rate to be 1e-6 for today's block height ~ 410000, =
this is
>> about 20 bits per element.  So for todays block's, this is a 30kb filt=
er, for a
>> 3% increase in block size, if blocks commit to the filter.  Thus the r=
equired
>> size of the filter commitment is roughly:
>>
>>     filter size =3D N \log_2 H
>>
>> where H is the block height.  If bitcoin had these filters from the be=
ginning, a
>> light client today would have to download about 12MB of data in filter=
s.  My
>> personal SPV wallet is using 31MB currently.  It's not clear this is a=
 bandwidth
>> win, though it's definitely a win for computing load on full nodes.
>>
>>
>> [1] https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dga/papers/cuckoo-conext2014.pdf
>>
>> --
>> Cheers, Bob McElrath
>>
>> "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, =
and wrong."
>>     -- H. L. Mencken=20
>>
>>
>>
>> !DSPAM:5733934b206851108912031!
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>> !DSPAM:5733934b206851108912031!
> --
> Cheers, Bob McElrath
>
> "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, a=
nd wrong."
>     -- H. L. Mencken=20
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--rG9Xq5TKBKPiPVai09PRBRfpIl6eWTV11
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXmnQRAAoJEGuaHwy3wggS/JkH+QH6dL+fy4iPVpc51vXI9DDO
1jwZXw5wYC8I5Vrkz/CRFdVtej0mod9mh6iDrvGGpvEhEK4wkJ2b+9H21l0d221P
xKYNNu6gXH8hwCDzi+ybHLcJQEYX5LqsJOZQswSP41Ylhg3oThkhr8y13Hngyppf
do5gJCdr7aoORXcSwoMdUUrFSh/wN2bED+8jEaKg/AkwFB2W6/EjS1FZCwtyqOOn
/cmaBs3WzWqkGgua7nZta943Mrwn4jsN119GV7VuK5cGVAJVy4kB5FXDddeALZMV
5XQhdzDQYVak51YmwaQEOIt/7lV+fBy623oQ/6zKTo0OK/q7hU7aqDNUaRI7/Fk=
=MNzI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--rG9Xq5TKBKPiPVai09PRBRfpIl6eWTV11--