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
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1YPDDb-0004T4-2B
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 21 Feb 2015 16:47:51 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.212.175; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-wi0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com ([209.85.212.175])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YPDDZ-0001BQ-Dv
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 21 Feb 2015 16:47:51 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id r20so8853228wiv.2
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 21 Feb 2015 08:47:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.93.134 with SMTP id cu6mr5886643wjb.79.1424537263412;
Sat, 21 Feb 2015 08:47:43 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.188.11 with HTTP; Sat, 21 Feb 2015 08:47:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54E8AC69.4000102@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>
<CANEZrP21+0kLCX2sanFYFKEQj4iGgMmmA5sc3k_y+mpx9WC09A@mail.gmail.com>
<54E8AC69.4000102@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 17:47:43 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: FEPxGaGsZgd5qUuki924ErgfEgc
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2iPRA_mSXqdzXBxiNZ=aJEEfTaG5DL5Bg0zPGPhkkhPw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Chris Pacia <ctpacia@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb7092c8e1ec0050f9bed38
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: 1YPDDZ-0001BQ-Dv
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: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 16:47:51 -0000
--047d7bb7092c8e1ec0050f9bed38
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Adam seems to be making sense to me. Only querying a single node when an
> address in my wallet matches the block filter seems to be pretty efficient.
>
No, I think it's less efficient (for the client).
Quick sums: blocks with 1500 transactions in them are common today. But
Bitcoin is growing. Let's imagine a system 10x larger than today. Doesn't
seem implausible to reach that in the next 5-10 years, so 15,000
transactions. Each transaction has multiple elements we might want to match
(addresses, keys, etc).
Let's say the average tx contains 5 unique keys/elements. That's the base
case of {1 input, 2 outputs} without address reuse, plus fudged up a bit
for multi-sends then down a bit again for address reuse.
15,000*5=75,000 unique elements per block. With an FP rate of 0.1% we get:
http://hur.st/bloomfilter?n=75000&p=0.001
131.63KB per block extra overhead.
144 blocks in a day, so that's 18mb of data per day's worth of sync to pull
down over the network. If you don't start your wallet for a week that's 126
megabytes of data just to get started.
Affordable, yes (in the west). Fast enough to be competitive? Doubtful. I
don't believe that even in five years mobiles will be pulling down and
processing that much data within a few seconds, not even in developed
countries.
But like I said, I don't see why it matters. Anyone who is watching the
wire close to you learns which transactions are yours, still, so it doesn't
stop intelligence agencies. Anyone who is running a node learns which
transactions in the requested block were yours and thus can follow the tx
chain to learn which other transactions might be yours too, no different to
today. If you connect to a single node and say "give me the transactions
sending money to key A in block N", it doesn't matter if you then don't
request block N+6 from the same peer - they know you will request it
eventually anyway, just by virtue of the fact that one of the transactions
they gave you was spent in that block.
--047d7bb7092c8e1ec0050f9bed38
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"><div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">Adam seems to be mak=
ing sense to me. Only querying a single node
when an address in my wallet matches the block filter seems to be
pretty efficient.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, I think it&=
#39;s less efficient (for the client).</div><div><br></div><div>Quick sums:=
=C2=A0blocks with 1500 transactions in them are common today. But Bitcoin =
is growing. Let's imagine a system 10x larger than today. Doesn't s=
eem implausible to reach that in the next 5-10 years, so 15,000 transaction=
s. Each transaction has multiple elements we might want to match (addresses=
, keys, etc).=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>Let's say the average tx c=
ontains 5 unique keys/elements. That's the base case of {1 input, 2 out=
puts} without address reuse, plus fudged up a bit for multi-sends then down=
a bit again for address reuse.<br></div><div><br></div><div>15,000*5=3D75,=
000 unique elements per block. With an FP rate of 0.1% we get:</div><div><b=
r></div><div><a href=3D"http://hur.st/bloomfilter?n=3D75000&p=3D0.001">=
http://hur.st/bloomfilter?n=3D75000&p=3D0.001</a><br></div><div><br></d=
iv><div>131.63KB per block extra overhead.<br></div><div><br></div><div>144=
blocks in a day, so that's 18mb of data per day's worth of sync to=
pull down over the network. If you don't start your wallet for a week =
that's 126 megabytes of data just=C2=A0to get started.</div><div><br></=
div><div>Affordable, yes (in the west). Fast enough to be competitive? Doub=
tful. I don't believe that even in five years mobiles will be pulling d=
own and processing that much data within a few seconds, not even in develop=
ed countries.</div><div><br></div><div>But like I said, I don't see why=
it matters. Anyone who is watching the wire close to you learns which tran=
sactions are yours, still, so it doesn't stop intelligence agencies. An=
yone who is running a node learns which transactions in the requested block=
were yours and thus can follow the tx chain to learn which other transacti=
ons might be yours too, no different to today. If you connect to a single n=
ode and say "give me the transactions sending money to key A in block =
N", it doesn't matter if you then don't request block N+6 from=
the same peer - they know you will request it eventually anyway, just by v=
irtue of the fact that one of the transactions they gave you was spent in t=
hat block.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div>
--047d7bb7092c8e1ec0050f9bed38--
|
