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 EE163B9E for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:08:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from cock.li (cock.li [185.100.85.212]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB2B6E9 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:08:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cock.lu; s=mail; t=1497964084; bh=mUt88oOcfJCkz7jhXkqsnEpPH/dchMWJ/MiIbp9B6U4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=UEQc36weNCjFxwG93RJau4coGeDsQoLS/F9puVVD6KimXe6ho2X1Wfbyf573XN2RQ ZuMuAKvwk8GalgfIMOj844Rysgk0h0ABIuhUa66Kcp+PcX6/f8UzUq2Gtvwdu69Ofp CCS4lxwrqKUQOxm5FYkMisjR14u2aXpXR030OYQS1vsyFErDV0cRnlmIZwllxmIqPs Q+KNqbmhibPlzwaTFKsxmkyuB5Y0VeTnXJq0EIclZqm0gpU6+MmyVLmmorO3eXX2qr JzhBQHQHm2PpdclxGgLX0TjhKotS+EIIGviPuvDXj1sFjMoA1HywuHQ0j+/+coAnWY 04SvTrICrnpIQ== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 16:08:03 +0300 From: bfd@cock.lu To: Tom Zander In-Reply-To: <29376397.dRe9PMdyPS@strawberry> References: <537fb7106e0387c77537f0b1279cbeca@cock.lu> <29376397.dRe9PMdyPS@strawberry> Message-ID: <3d4e50fe9f582066d1d6de0565132b5b@cock.lu> X-Sender: bfd@cock.lu User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.3 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 13:40:19 +0000 Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org 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 13:08:09 -0000 On 2017-06-20 12:52, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Second, stating that a bloom filter is a "total loss of privacy" is > equally > baseless and doesn’t need debunking. > "On the Privacy Provisions of Bloom Filters in Lightweight Bitcoin Clients" > We show analytically and empirically that the reliance on Bloom filters > within existing SPV clients leaks considerable information about the > addresses of Bitcoin users. Our results show that an SPV client who > uses a modest number of Bitcoin addresses (e.g., < 20) risks revealing > almost all of his addresses. https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/763.pdf