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 ) 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 ; 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: References: Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 18:53:12 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9cVO9TaCjv4lJRutk6q_V1be5PQ Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Gregory Maxwell 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 Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] bloom filtering, privacy X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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
This is talking about a committed bloom filter. Not a committe= d UTXO set.

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

but with the bloom commitment (and U= TXO trie organised commitment) he
can verify that the positive hits are correct via the merkle = path, and
that the f= alse positives are not being wrongly withheld by obtaining
merkle path proof that they are not = in the trie=C2=A0


--047d7bb7092cebc5dd050f88b97f--