From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A8378DC for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:52:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx-out01.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A19D8E for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:52:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com X-Spam-Score: -2.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx04.mykolab.com (mx04.mykolab.com [10.20.7.102]) by mx-out01.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68AE36197A for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 11:52:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Tom Zander To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 11:52:00 +0200 Message-ID: <29376397.dRe9PMdyPS@strawberry> In-Reply-To: References: <537fb7106e0387c77537f0b1279cbeca@cock.lu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 12:57:02 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Compact Client Side Filtering for Light Clients X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:52:05 -0000 On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 00:41:49 CEST Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev=20 wrote: > Can someone make a case why saving no more than those figures would > justify the near total loss of privacy that filtering gives? =46irst, your figures are wrong and also fall out of the sky with no=20 justification. Can=E2=80=99t debunk something that is pure garbage. Second, stating that a bloom filter is a "total loss of privacy" is equally= =20 baseless and doesn=E2=80=99t need debunking. > "Because they already do it" isn't a good argument when talking about > a new protocol feature; things which already do BIP37 will presumably > continue to already do BIP37. I think you just made the case for completely rejecting this proposal based= =20 on the fact that nobody will use it, BIP37 already exists. Not sure if I agree with that, improvements are always useful and we should= =20 be able to come up with replacements. But arguing against a feature you don=E2=80=99t like, especiallyh one used = by=20 millions every day, is a sad way to stiffle innovation, Greg. =2D-=20 Tom Zander Blog: https://zander.github.io Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel