public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Revisiting NODE_BLOOM: Proposed BIP
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 01:08:49 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <55D7CBA1.7080606@mattcorallo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55D7662E.4090104@mattcorallo.com>

BIP Editor: Can I get a BIP # for this?

On 08/21/15 17:55, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Revised copy follows. re: mentioning the HTTP seeding stuff, I'm not
> sure we want to encourage more people aside from bitcoinj to use
> that...I thought about adding a DNS seed section to this bip, but
> decided against it...still, I think we should add the option to select
> service bits to DNS seeds ASAP.
> 
> Re: need to "shard" the blockchain: not sure what you're referring to
> here. The bloom filter stuff requires you to download the chain
> in-order, sure, but you have to do that for headers anyway, and
> hopefully your total data isnt too much more than headers alone.
> 
> Anyone have the best reference for the DoS issues?
> 
> BIP: ?
> Title: NODE_BLOOM service bit
> Author: Matt Corallo <bip@bluematt.me>, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
> Type: Standards Track (draft)
> Created: 20-08-2015
> 
> Abstract
> ========
> 
> This BIP extends BIP 37, Connection Bloom filtering, by defining a
> service bit to allow peers to advertise that they support bloom filters
> explicitly. It also bumps the protocol version to allow peers to
> identify old nodes which allow bloom filtering of the connection despite
> lacking the new service bit.
> 
> 
> Motivation
> ==========
> 
> BIP 37 did not specify a service bit for the bloom filter service, thus
> implicitly assuming that all nodes that serve peers data support it.
> However, the connection filtering algorithm proposed in BIP 37, and
> implemented in several clients today, has been shown to provide little
> to no privacy[1], as well as being a large DoS risk on some nodes[2].
> Thus, allowing node operators to disable connection bloom filtering is a
> much-needed feature.
> 
> 
> Specification
> =============
> 
> The following protocol bit is added:
> 
>     NODE_BLOOM = (1 << 2)
> 
> Nodes which support bloom filters should set that protocol bit.
> Otherwise it should remain unset. In addition the protocol version is
> increased from 70002 to 70011 in the reference implementation. It is
> often the case that nodes which have a protocol version smaller than
> 70011, but larger than 70000 support bloom filtered connections without
> the NODE_BLOOM bit set, however clients which require bloom filtered
> connections should avoid making this assumption.
> 
> NODE_BLOOM is distinct from NODE_NETWORK, and it is legal to advertise
> NODE_BLOOM but not NODE_NETWORK (eg for nodes running in pruned mode
> which, nonetheless, provide filtered access to the data which they do have).
> 
> If a node does not support bloom filters but receives a "filterload",
> "filteradd", or "filterclear" message from a peer the node should
> disconnect that peer immediately. For backwards compatibility, in
> initial implementations, nodes may choose to only disconnect nodes which
> have the new protocol version set and attempt to send a filter command.
> 
> While outside the scope of this BIP it is suggested that DNS seeds and
> other peer discovery mechanisms support the ability to specify the
> services required; current implementations simply check only that
> NODE_NETWORK is set.
> 
> 
> Design rational
> ===============
> 
> A service bit was chosen as applying a bloom filter is a service.
> 
> The increase in protocol version is for backwards compatibility. In
> initial implementations, old nodes which are not yet aware of NODE_BLOOM
> and use a protocol version < 70011 may still send filter* messages to a
> node without NODE_BLOOM. This feature may be removed after there are
> sufficient NODE_BLOOM nodes available and SPV clients have upgraded,
> allowing node operators to fully close the bloom-related DoS vectors.
> 
> 
> Reference Implementation
> ========================
> 
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6579
> 
> 
> Copyright
> =========
> 
> This document is placed in the public domain.
> 
> 
> References
> ==========
> 
> [1] http://eprint.iacr.org/2014/763
> [2] ???? is one example where the issues were found, though others
> independently discovered issues as well. Sample DoS exploit code
> available at https://github.com/petertodd/bloom-io-attack.
> 
> 
> 
> On 08/21/15 05:42, Peter Todd wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:38:19PM -0700, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>>> Motivation
>>>> ==========
>>>>
>>>> BIP 37 did not specify a service bit for the bloom filter service, thus
>>>> implicitly assuming that all nodes that serve peers data support it.
>>>> However, the connection filtering algorithm proposed in BIP 37, and
>>>> implemented in several clients today, has been shown to provide little
>>>> to no privacy, as well as being a large DoS risk on some nodes. Thus,
>>>> allowing node operators to disable connection bloom filtering is a
>>>> much-needed feature.
>>>
>>> I'd reference that paper on bloom filters re: the "little to no privacy"
>>> issue. There's also a post in the bitcoinj mailing list somewhere IIRC
>>> talking about the default settings, and how they don't provide any
>>> privacy.
>>
>> Oh, and we should also point out that Bloom filters have scaling issues,
>> as each application of the filter has to scan the whole blockchain -
>> with future blocksize increases these issues increase, in some proposals
>> quite dramatically. The underlying idea also conflicts with some
>> proposals to "shard" the blockchain, again suggesting that we need a bit
>> to handle future upgrades to more scalable designs.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> 


  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-08-22  1:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-08-21  4:46 [bitcoin-dev] Revisiting NODE_BLOOM: Proposed BIP Matt Corallo
2015-08-21  5:38 ` Peter Todd
2015-08-21  5:42   ` Peter Todd
2015-08-21 17:55     ` Matt Corallo
2015-08-21 22:06       ` Peter Todd
2015-08-22  1:08         ` Matt Corallo
2015-08-22  1:48           ` Peter Todd
2015-08-24 15:19         ` Tom Harding
2015-08-24 17:39           ` Matt Corallo
2015-08-22  1:08       ` Matt Corallo [this message]
2015-08-21  5:48 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-08-21  5:55   ` Peter Todd
2015-08-21  6:01     ` Jeff Garzik
2015-08-21  6:07       ` Peter Todd
2015-08-21 22:15         ` Chris Pacia
2015-08-21 22:25           ` Peter Todd
2015-08-21 23:08         ` Tom Harding
2015-08-24 15:21           ` Mike Hearn
2015-08-21  8:31     ` Andreas Schildbach
2015-08-21 17:53   ` Matt Corallo
2015-08-24 15:29 ` Wladimir J. van der Laan
2015-08-24 17:37   ` Matt Corallo
2015-08-24 17:41     ` Wladimir J. van der Laan
2015-08-24 17:58       ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-24 18:00     ` Peter Todd
2015-08-24 18:07       ` Matt Corallo
2015-08-24 18:15         ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-08-24 18:28           ` Matt Corallo
2015-08-24 18:30           ` Wladimir J. van der Laan
2015-08-24 18:33             ` Eric Lombrozo

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=55D7CBA1.7080606@mattcorallo.com \
    --to=lf-lists@mattcorallo.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=gmaxwell@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
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