From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WsqAU-0007tF-JB for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 09:10:34 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org designates 62.13.149.77 as permitted sender) client-ip=62.13.149.77; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; helo=outmail149077.authsmtp.com; Received: from outmail149077.authsmtp.com ([62.13.149.77]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1WsqAT-0005VJ-CL for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 09:10:34 +0000 Received: from mail-c237.authsmtp.com (mail-c237.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.237]) by punt15.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id s569ALbc095833; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:10:21 +0100 (BST) Received: from savin (76-10-178-109.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.178.109]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id s569A9gj075755 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 6 Jun 2014 10:10:12 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 05:11:34 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Gregory Maxwell Message-ID: <20140606091134.GA23205@savin> References: <20140606081933.GA29458@savin> <20140606084852.GA30247@netbook.cypherspace.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Server-Quench: 5dd679d8-ed5a-11e3-9f74-002590a135d3 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aQdMdgQUEkAaAgsB AmIbWlReUV17WGE7 bAxPbAVDY01GQQRq WVdMSlVNFUsrBBoI dxdJCBl1cgJDfTBx Z0BnXD5eCBB8ck8p SlMBQWhXeGZhPWMC WRZfcx5UcAFPdx8U a1N6AHBDAzANdhES HhM4ODE3eDlSNilR RRkIIFQOdA4tORIR cDomOhIKVVYIXTsy JBFuIF8AdAAA X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1024:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 76.10.178.109/587 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1WsqAT-0005VJ-CL Cc: Bitcoin Development 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 09:10:34 -0000 --bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 02:03:29AM -0700, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Adam Back wrote: > > 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 opin= ion. > > 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, glo= bal > > effect as with reused addresses. >=20 > The performance Bytecoin/Monero/Fantom/etc. systems that use ECDH > addresses for all transactions seem to be suggesting that the prefixes > aren't really needed. >=20 > At least with current system rules doing the ECDH for each transaction > seems pretty reasonable. Yup. Obelisk's indexing is sufficiently fast that they hadn't even bothered making Dark Wallet store transaction information between sessions until recently. Prefix brute-forcing isn't yet implemented, although prefix filters is being implemented for lookups in general. (at the very least it gives the server operators some valuable plausible deniability) --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000003a68ee16d702ca5dd5547fb4aead910a004747cb06241dd6 --bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) iQGrBAEBCACVBQJTkYXCXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAzYTY4ZWUxNmQ3MDJjYTVkZDU1NDdmYjRhZWFkOTEwYTAw NDc0N2NiMDYyNDFkZDYvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQJIFAPaXwkftD4ggAphIHvgjO/klijrcJkOxBkss8 HjCzUtQVxl8rkbodbPMi0B6lSeH1FcK2VTprkEMd9tmqk8oKKoijadPkQUn1e/ci 0MJUtoIgWoJf2f8domB0sB+gx2rwUoXbtNWHmJ80s73aRg7xYk5QSoSojpzPvYT4 1sjbDuBoLxLkVV67N+yA9ewy/OU0GB/JrrzYjq48r+vrTQIsA4c7jZdvIUOUlQC2 Z2YcYTi8e7mPOQRrc5AbgPLxFInAjbuS2U1T9ceayeJnDSIfM6pmOMqfogYJhNrC UStG5Xh7ocFzOifhm15q+TvF0g88WbYpwULgpr3+4mskD/biJh9TeyZiK6ozow== =rOBj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --bg08WKrSYDhXBjb5--