Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.217.174 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.217.174; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-lb0-f174.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20140606084852.GA30247@netbook.cypherspace.org>
References: <20140606081933.GA29458@savin>
	<20140606084852.GA30247@netbook.cypherspace.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 02:03:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTsjZPxds+QHb+ceC_Thu4xsDFAEqXtxznCs_EbyLZepg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] NODE_BLOOM service bit
Precedence: list

On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:
> Advertising NODE BLOOM as a service sounds good.
>
> But the critique of bloom filters, I am not so sure prefix filters are
> better.  Prefix filters offer questionable privacy tradeoffs in my opinion.
> Same problem as with stealth address proposed use of prefixes.
>
> All for scalability, efficiency and decentralization but not ideally at the
> expense of nuking privacy.  The effects on privacy are cumulative, and
> affect everyone not just the user.  Same pattern of local decision, global
> effect as with reused addresses.

The performance Bytecoin/Monero/Fantom/etc. systems that use ECDH
addresses for all transactions seem to be suggesting that the prefixes
aren't really needed.

At least with current system rules doing the ECDH for each transaction
seems pretty reasonable.