Re: [Bitcoin-development] NODE_BLOOM BIP

[Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 989 bytes --]

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 08:22:10AM +1000, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> Mike pointed out exactly the reason I oppose a NODE_BLOOM service bit: I
> also think it is a bad idea to start making various bits and pieces of the
> protocol optional.

> It is bad for privacy (easier to fingerprint nodes) and bad for
> decentralization (fewer nodes support your required feature set). And every
> bit you add can give you an exponential number of combinations your QA team
> should test.

Mike's and others have been talking about persistent node-specific
identifiers, and after all at this level there are IP addresses;
fingerprinting nodes is trivial.

> I'd say the same thing about NODE_TRANSACTION ("I don't know about blocks,
> have and NODE_BLOCK bits.

We need options so peopl can contribute to relaying and the health of
the network - these edge cases are going to be tested anyway by people
like me deciding to disable bloom filtering.

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]