From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail•com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] bloom filtering, privacy
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:18:10 +0100 (CET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1502201702220.10329@nzrgulfg.ivfhpber.pbz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTE2doZjbsUxd-e09+euiG6bt_J=_BwKY_Ni3MNK6BiW1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Hello Adam,
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015, Adam Back wrote:
> So I was wondering what about changing to committing a bloom filter of
> the addresses in the block. Its seems surprising no one thought of it
> that way before (as it seems obvious when you hear it) but that seems
> to address the privacy issues as the user can fetch the block bloom
> filters and then scan it in complete privacy. (Someone appeared on
> bitcoin wizards IRC a while back and made this observation.)
I have heard this idea of inverting the bloom filter before (possibly in
#bitcoin-wizards), and as I see it it would indeed improve the privacy.
Apart from privacy it would also lower the burden for nodes. A block scan
with bloom filter is effectively a cheap DoS on a node.
In addition to that it will also avoid the 'transaction withholding
attack' that is possible with the current bloom filtering, at least if the
filter is e.g. committed to in the block header.
The drawback would be overhead - the bloom filter per block will have a
significant size (to avoid false positives), and the client would have to
fetch entire blocks that have its transactions in it.
I don't think that is so bad in practice, after all the % of blocks that
will have transactions for a given wallet will generally be low, so the
block size is amortized in a way. Of course, if the block size would be
increased this would become worse.
Wladimir
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-20 16:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-20 12:44 Adam Back
2015-02-20 16:18 ` Wladimir [this message]
2015-02-20 16:38 ` Tamas Blummer
2015-02-20 16:54 ` Mike Hearn
2015-02-20 17:35 ` Adam Back
2015-02-20 17:43 ` Mike Hearn
2015-02-20 17:59 ` Adam Back
2015-02-20 18:10 ` Mike Hearn
2015-02-20 18:20 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-02-20 19:03 ` Mike Hearn
2015-02-21 5:12 ` Adam Back
2015-02-21 13:28 ` Mike Hearn
2015-02-21 14:30 ` Adam Back
2015-02-21 14:45 ` Mike Hearn
2015-02-20 17:50 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-02-20 17:53 ` Mike Hearn
2015-02-21 16:03 ` Chris Pacia
2015-02-21 16:47 ` Mike Hearn
2015-02-21 18:38 ` Chris Pacia
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=alpine.DEB.2.10.1502201702220.10329@nzrgulfg.ivfhpber.pbz \
--to=laanwj@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=adam@cypherspace$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/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