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
|
Return-Path: <gcbd-bitcoin-development-2@m.gmane.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 207B3D7E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 15 Apr 2018 18:37:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from blaine.gmane.org (unknown [195.159.176.226])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BBF7473
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 15 Apr 2018 18:37:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <gcbd-bitcoin-development-2@m.gmane.org>)
id 1f7mV3-0005rz-Rm for bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org;
Sun, 15 Apr 2018 20:35:41 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
From: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 20:37:45 +0200
Message-ID: <pb061m$lj1$1@blaine.gmane.org>
References: <paqids$e14$1@blaine.gmane.org>
<4A0CD31A-8745-4425-99FC-5DF12FA3B917@jonasschnelli.ch>
<CADZtCSjsLSr_A-cBG5weAgstW9RG0sDL1txHC_E9ksVL=xJ4uA@mail.gmail.com>
<CALxbBHV=xpzu8iL-S=EKBc39QWvAiicVixM_j3Ve1TH+sngPoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.7.0
In-Reply-To: <CALxbBHV=xpzu8iL-S=EKBc39QWvAiicVixM_j3Ve1TH+sngPoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_ALL,
FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BloomFilter issue with segwit addresses
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: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 18:37:56 -0000
Yes, I guess the quicker filter exhaustion must be the reason why
bitcoinj doesn't make use of outpoints in filters for standard
transactions. I'll look into if I can change that.
On 04/14/2018 06:14 PM, Christian Decker via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Note that this would compound the privacy leak that Jonas Nick used to
> identify address clusters via the bloom filters in one of his
> publications. By reducing the false positives when matching you can get
> very detailed clusters. Then again we know that bloom filters aren't
> good for privacy anyway, so this might be a non-issue.
>
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2018, 00:17 Jim Posen via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
> Why not add the outpoints owned by the wallet to the filter and
> watch for those instead of elements in the input script or witness data?
>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Andreas
>
> Thanks for bringing this up and this seems indeed to be suboptimal.
>
> > I wonder if Bitcoin Core would be willing to extend the BIP37 matching
> > rules such that data elements in the witness are also matched against?
>
> Bitcoin Core is not an identity that can be „willing to extend“
> (or reject) a feature.
> Someone needs to come up with a proposal (pull request).
>
> Maybe an extension for BIP37 would make sense (*meh*).
> Just inserting the witness data into the bloom filter seems to
> be an easy solution (CBloomFilter::IsRelevantAndUpdate())
>
> /jonas
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
|
