From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo•com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Revisiting NODE_BLOOM: Proposed BIP
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 22:38:19 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150821053819.GA18176@muck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55D6AD19.10305@mattcorallo.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3657 bytes --]
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 04:46:17AM +0000, Matt Corallo wrote:
> Peter: Since I stole most of this text from your old BIP, should I leave
> you as an author?
That's fine by me.
> BIP: ?
> Title: NODE_BLOOM service bit
> Author: Matt Corallo <bip@bluematt•me>, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
> Type: Standards Track (draft)
> Created: 20-08-2015
>
> Abstract
> ========
>
> This BIP extends BIP 37, Connection Bloom filtering, by defining a
> service bit to allow peers to advertise that they support bloom filters
> explicitly. It also bumps the protocol version to allow peers to
> identify old nodes which allow bloom filtering of the connection despite
> lacking the new service bit.
>
>
> Motivation
> ==========
>
> BIP 37 did not specify a service bit for the bloom filter service, thus
> implicitly assuming that all nodes that serve peers data support it.
> However, the connection filtering algorithm proposed in BIP 37, and
> implemented in several clients today, has been shown to provide little
> to no privacy, as well as being a large DoS risk on some nodes. Thus,
> allowing node operators to disable connection bloom filtering is a
> much-needed feature.
I'd reference that paper on bloom filters re: the "little to no privacy"
issue. There's also a post in the bitcoinj mailing list somewhere IIRC
talking about the default settings, and how they don't provide any
privacy.
> Specification
> =============
>
> The following protocol bit is added:
>
> NODE_BLOOM = (1 << 2)
>
> Nodes which support bloom filters should set that protocol bit.
> Otherwise it should remain unset. In addition the protocol version is
> increased from 70002 to 70011 in the reference implementation. It is
> often the case that nodes which have a protocol version smaller than
> 70011, but larger than 70000 support bloom filtered connections without
> the NODE_BLOOM bit set, however clients which require bloom filtered
> connections should avoid making this assumption.
>
> NODE_BLOOM is distinct from NODE_NETWORK, and it is legal to advertise
> NODE_BLOOM but not NODE_NETWORK (eg for nodes running in pruned mode
> which, nonetheless, provide filtered access to the data which they do have).
>
> If a node does not support bloom filters but receives a "filterload",
> "filteradd", or "filterclear" message from a peer the node should
> disconnect that peer immediately. For backwards compatibility, in
> initial implementations, nodes may choose to only disconnect nodes which
> have the new protocol version set and attempt to send a filter command.
>
> While outside the scope of this BIP it is suggested that DNS seeds and
> other peer discovery mechanisms support the ability to specify the
> services required; current implementations simply check only that
> NODE_NETWORK is set.
Good to note Mike Hearn's Cartography seed protocol here.
> Design rational
> ===============
>
> A service bit was chosen as applying a bloom filter is a service.
>
> The increase in protocol version is for backwards compatibility. In
> initial implementations, old nodes which are not yet aware of NODE_BLOOM
> and use a protocol version < 70011 may still send filter* messages to a
> node without NODE_BLOOM. This feature may be removed after there are
> sufficient NODE_BLOOM nodes available and SPV clients have upgraded,
> allowing node operators to fully close the bloom-related DoS vectors.
Ah good! That solves the backwards compatibility quite nicely.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000402fe6fb9ad613c93e12bddfc6ec02a2bd92f002050594d
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-21 5:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-21 4:46 Matt Corallo
2015-08-21 5:38 ` Peter Todd [this message]
2015-08-21 5:42 ` Peter Todd
2015-08-21 17:55 ` Matt Corallo
2015-08-21 22:06 ` Peter Todd
2015-08-22 1:08 ` Matt Corallo
2015-08-22 1:48 ` Peter Todd
2015-08-24 15:19 ` Tom Harding
2015-08-24 17:39 ` Matt Corallo
2015-08-22 1:08 ` Matt Corallo
2015-08-21 5:48 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-08-21 5:55 ` Peter Todd
2015-08-21 6:01 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-08-21 6:07 ` Peter Todd
2015-08-21 22:15 ` Chris Pacia
2015-08-21 22:25 ` Peter Todd
2015-08-21 23:08 ` Tom Harding
2015-08-24 15:21 ` Mike Hearn
2015-08-21 8:31 ` Andreas Schildbach
2015-08-21 17:53 ` Matt Corallo
2015-08-24 15:29 ` Wladimir J. van der Laan
2015-08-24 17:37 ` Matt Corallo
2015-08-24 17:41 ` Wladimir J. van der Laan
2015-08-24 17:58 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-24 18:00 ` Peter Todd
2015-08-24 18:07 ` Matt Corallo
2015-08-24 18:15 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-24 18:28 ` Matt Corallo
2015-08-24 18:30 ` Wladimir J. van der Laan
2015-08-24 18:33 ` Eric Lombrozo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150821053819.GA18176@muck \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=lf-lists@mattcorallo$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox