1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42FCFB44
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 19 Jun 2017 22:41:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f47.google.com (mail-vk0-f47.google.com
[209.85.213.47])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D93E8140
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 19 Jun 2017 22:41:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f47.google.com with SMTP id p62so60324991vkp.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
:subject:to; bh=IagbTYnf+r9yEyOUTGLXx0/thAzO1R9fP6+Y68wlfA4=;
b=JPgNTkh1ewpaBXJZimIfRsbgbkD5qrPkSadpxpNry7c3UwAx0QmdsHUhe/DsYg9Bfn
mw123YA3mnb5iNf8LmCF7Q7Nhkej1SarC8E9zp5zvr2PFS93GzvFEbEM67g3QGkEbUY1
///VICnjIpC6zcXLWQSWEiMONWtclO/H1B9cjIkM9Lv4p5GkCnHxzDbZLXgC9n0TvmDv
8uplFvryllLs4sIicr05dmDwqTyZGaPYrHNcPPyovV1i7nIBmo3/0uOCdBt8bBnB7mha
UNmLN4baYjtxl96Gg2g/Lo0IVZM4jEu7YN30rtlXW1p55Wcaw4KhjJcH1Ka8Q6FFEwqe
Z8JA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from
:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=IagbTYnf+r9yEyOUTGLXx0/thAzO1R9fP6+Y68wlfA4=;
b=B6fy+i3pf13UgzEtQxH820sQPWykJyPunQPTJ8jTC5qsEv3atPKKCBP+H70xqAis4R
eqMK9DEfXhjM4u6azayF4abJHC+gdQUD2JHQeZ3j5TlrebDtDTgwLbeP5NIjrAeO2uxl
NCd7sXmu0dQwGgl1K8W8qrtvQJmjX/0eRzmvH7B/I+C6TxlqDTuTfWZ8zBSoU6kWCUVf
EyvZ5kKIXkWaqF3FIX4MWlBL6/aTvicAAUM8Bzb+BIg3PtOK0s7HogpeKhyY0u+omLSY
pCPz1i9eQ2+Vo7DHn8DD2v5Hb+WdD4/1cx0aKN3ChACgfO7YQ7XJRyZAntIjjVqpF5r8
Z7YQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOz8Wgx6T29/667MvNNG6kQrSbcKkRVheQ1QXgVkxlXw7epHQ85z
/5HCENcb9T1x6i1ONPwJWVIQHljuVG/V
X-Received: by 10.31.10.198 with SMTP id 189mr7125793vkk.36.1497912109740;
Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com
Received: by 10.103.13.7 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:41:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <537fb7106e0387c77537f0b1279cbeca@cock.lu>
References: <CAO3Pvs8ccTkgrecJG6KFbBW+9moHF-FTU+4qNfayeE3hM9uRrg@mail.gmail.com>
<oi8e8k$g56$1@blaine.gmane.org>
<537fb7106e0387c77537f0b1279cbeca@cock.lu>
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 22:41:49 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1wC9P9IkyLcuSDLn1uxmYY7TiaY
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQ4nfYrRasm7jwx4B86fNKb6NvpHy-Dt=3bfiaNt10snA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Compact Client Side Filtering for
Light Clients
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 22:41:51 -0000
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:26 PM, bfd--- via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Several times. It's been debated if unconfirmed transactions are necessary,
> methods of doing more private filtering have been suggested, along with
> simply not filtering unconfirmed transactions at all. My collected data
> suggests that there is very little use of BIP37 at present, based on
> incoming connections to nodes I know end up in the DNS seed responses (no
> "SPV" clients do their own peer management).
Sending just the output addresses of each transaction would use about
1 kilobit/s of data. Sending the entire transactions would use
~14kbit/sec data. These don't seem to be a unsustainable tremendous
amount of data to use while an application is running.
Doubly so for SPV wallets which are highly vulnerable to unconfirmed
transactions, and many which last I heard testing reports on became
pretty severely corrupted once given a fake transaction.
Can someone make a case why saving no more than those figures would
justify the near total loss of privacy that filtering gives?
"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.
|
