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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <adam@cypherspace.org>) id 1Wsppl-0005PU-3H
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 06 Jun 2014 08:49:09 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from mout.perfora.net ([74.208.4.195])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Wsppj-0002v5-OC
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 06 Jun 2014 08:49:09 +0000
Received: from netbook (c31-67.i07-8.onvol.net [92.251.31.67])
by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus4) with ESMTP (Nemesis)
id 0LmbBD-1WJmKK3Owl-00Ztk3; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 04:49:00 -0400
Received: by netbook (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 1F3582E50DD; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:48:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by flare (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1000);
Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:48:52 +0200
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:48:52 +0200
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Message-ID: <20140606084852.GA30247@netbook.cypherspace.org>
References: <20140606081933.GA29458@savin>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140606081933.GA29458@savin>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Hashcash: 1:20:140606:pete@petertodd.org::OYXk4QiUzyE+3Pvs:0000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000QzQ
X-Hashcash: 1:20:140606:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net::s2U2vGqqN/5xR
Hto:000000000000000000002P45
X-Hashcash: 1:20:140606:gmaxwell@gmail.com::9/RzxN+O3E35iBks:0000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000KB
X-Hashcash: 1:20:140606:adam@cypherspace.org::FviQBzdJOqw65Fn7:00000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000HYB
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:JTDNu5ZPjr/VFgHQOHoeRHn3/jiUNjr6sPurl2/NJQH
gaNxYwQqtAX+hmyfcvMwA2lXIXbryNOzsGg1INsCF4a8nleEPp
NmH/Fz+/usgdVcKlBMX2NzHNSM6nysg5Nd7PPHQpVkNd81X9bx
iA6ngIMiYs4BwFbPiYZ4KN7veMLgESyQAhPUAs0hlV5+1vPAUv
rREUfKo+VN+4937ywGBTZ0w9CHs5KzFJOLYMOEMmN4grShy8RH
e3zH+g+vctwA4ma83PpuAooHM+SKtdgpfTCGUB8cdXo/G3Y5x+
ePOcrk3fVgONwaTgMD6LtCvxqnLU4z07VnHdB0jD7Y5w5k2RTJ
YaUYi12N8a+ZJWM1+uOgyj4laxgzWy6kpp9SpAh/n
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [74.208.4.195 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1Wsppj-0002v5-OC
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] NODE_BLOOM service bit
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: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 08:49:09 -0000
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.
Adam
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 04:19:33AM -0400, Peter Todd wrote:
>In the short term bloom filters have high IO loads, which have lead to
>DoS attacks, and are not an optimal use of resources for nodes which are
>IO constrained rather than bandwidth constrained. (common in VPS setups
>which could better help the network by serving full blocks)
|
