Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1YOrlQ-0000Tf-Ks
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:53:20 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.212.172 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.212.172; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-wi0-f172.google.com; 
Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1YOrlO-0000dS-Rq
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:53:20 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id l15so4650433wiw.5
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:53:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.93.134 with SMTP id cu6mr20690134wjb.79.1424454792756;
	Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:53:12 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.188.11 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:53:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSEqYNiGFk0pZ-hT_0zR7_Nh1OUvyfFd-DE=a-cdzgWwQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALqxMTE2doZjbsUxd-e09+euiG6bt_J=_BwKY_Ni3MNK6BiW1Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP32M-hSU-a1DA5aTQXsx-6425sTeKW-m-cSUuXCYf+zuQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgSEqYNiGFk0pZ-hT_0zR7_Nh1OUvyfFd-DE=a-cdzgWwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 18:53:12 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9cVO9TaCjv4lJRutk6q_V1be5PQ
Message-ID: <CANEZrP21+0kLCX2sanFYFKEQj4iGgMmmA5sc3k_y+mpx9WC09A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb7092cebc5dd050f88b97f
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1YOrlO-0000dS-Rq
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] bloom filtering, privacy
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:53:20 -0000

--047d7bb7092cebc5dd050f88b97f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> This is talking about a committed bloom filter. Not a committed UTXO set.
>

I read the following comment to mean it requires the UTXO commitments.
Otherwise I'm not sure how you prove absence of withholding with just
current block structures+an extra filter included in the block:

but with the bloom commitment (and UTXO trie organised commitment) he
> can verify that the positive hits are correct via the merkle path, and
> that the false positives are not being wrongly withheld by obtaining
> merkle path proof that they are not in the trie

--047d7bb7092cebc5dd050f88b97f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left=
-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;paddi=
ng-left:1ex">This is talking about a committed bloom filter. Not a committe=
d UTXO set.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I read the following commen=
t to mean it requires the UTXO commitments. Otherwise I&#39;m not sure how =
you prove absence of withholding with just current block structures+an extr=
a filter included in the block:</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gm=
ail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-l=
eft-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span =
style=3D"font-size:12.8000001907349px">but with the bloom commitment (and U=
TXO trie organised commitment) he<br></span><span style=3D"font-size:12.800=
0001907349px">can verify that the positive hits are correct via the merkle =
path, and<br></span><span style=3D"font-size:12.8000001907349px">that the f=
alse positives are not being wrongly withheld by obtaining<br></span><span =
style=3D"font-size:12.8000001907349px">merkle path proof that they are not =
in the trie</span>=C2=A0</blockquote></div><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_ex=
tra"><br></div></div>

--047d7bb7092cebc5dd050f88b97f--