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 C2BEABBC for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:39:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.bluematt.me (mail.bluematt.me [192.241.179.72]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D73F12E for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:39:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.17.0.1] (gw.vpn.bluematt.me [162.243.132.6]) by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E9BF560E5; Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:39:13 +0000 (UTC) To: Tom Harding , bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <55D6AD19.10305@mattcorallo.com> <20150821053819.GA18176@muck> <20150821054219.GB18176@muck> <55D7662E.4090104@mattcorallo.com> <20150821220603.GC7450@muck> <55DB35F1.5020603@thinlink.com> From: Matt Corallo Message-ID: <55DB56C0.4000904@mattcorallo.com> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:39:12 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <55DB35F1.5020603@thinlink.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Revisiting NODE_BLOOM: Proposed BIP X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:39:14 -0000 I'll just quote what I said on github: Neither this pull nor the BIP has any stated intention of phasing out bloom filtering support in the protocol. As much as I'd love to, I 100% agree with @mikehearn here, that would break any ability of SPV clients to operate on the P2P network (either as a way to double-check centralized servers, or otherwise), and that is really not a good idea without a replacement in place. This pull/BIP DOES suggest we phase out REQUIRED bloom filtering support in the protocol - thereby fixing the peer selection of SPV clients in the face of btcd with some flags/many patched versions of Core/etc peers, providing a remedy for a potential DoS attack, etc. Matt On 08/24/15 15:19, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On 8/21/2015 3:06 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 05:55:58PM +0000, Matt Corallo wrote: >>> Anyone have the best reference for the DoS issues? >> Well actually, we can reference the DoS attacks that Bitcoin XT nodes >> are undergoing right now - part of the attack is repeated Bloom filter >> requests to soak up disk IO bandwidth. > > So, to summarize, someone is attacking Mike Hearn's bitcoin fork. > Therefore, now is the perfect time to write a BIP and author changes > that begin the process of dropping support for the most broadly > successful class of wallets, which Mike Hearn's SPV client library enables. > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >