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 42FCFB44 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 22:41:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f47.google.com (mail-vk0-f47.google.com [209.85.213.47]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D93E8140 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 22:41:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f47.google.com with SMTP id p62so60324991vkp.0 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:41:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=IagbTYnf+r9yEyOUTGLXx0/thAzO1R9fP6+Y68wlfA4=; b=JPgNTkh1ewpaBXJZimIfRsbgbkD5qrPkSadpxpNry7c3UwAx0QmdsHUhe/DsYg9Bfn mw123YA3mnb5iNf8LmCF7Q7Nhkej1SarC8E9zp5zvr2PFS93GzvFEbEM67g3QGkEbUY1 ///VICnjIpC6zcXLWQSWEiMONWtclO/H1B9cjIkM9Lv4p5GkCnHxzDbZLXgC9n0TvmDv 8uplFvryllLs4sIicr05dmDwqTyZGaPYrHNcPPyovV1i7nIBmo3/0uOCdBt8bBnB7mha UNmLN4baYjtxl96Gg2g/Lo0IVZM4jEu7YN30rtlXW1p55Wcaw4KhjJcH1Ka8Q6FFEwqe Z8JA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=IagbTYnf+r9yEyOUTGLXx0/thAzO1R9fP6+Y68wlfA4=; b=B6fy+i3pf13UgzEtQxH820sQPWykJyPunQPTJ8jTC5qsEv3atPKKCBP+H70xqAis4R eqMK9DEfXhjM4u6azayF4abJHC+gdQUD2JHQeZ3j5TlrebDtDTgwLbeP5NIjrAeO2uxl NCd7sXmu0dQwGgl1K8W8qrtvQJmjX/0eRzmvH7B/I+C6TxlqDTuTfWZ8zBSoU6kWCUVf EyvZ5kKIXkWaqF3FIX4MWlBL6/aTvicAAUM8Bzb+BIg3PtOK0s7HogpeKhyY0u+omLSY pCPz1i9eQ2+Vo7DHn8DD2v5Hb+WdD4/1cx0aKN3ChACgfO7YQ7XJRyZAntIjjVqpF5r8 Z7YQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOz8Wgx6T29/667MvNNG6kQrSbcKkRVheQ1QXgVkxlXw7epHQ85z /5HCENcb9T1x6i1ONPwJWVIQHljuVG/V X-Received: by 10.31.10.198 with SMTP id 189mr7125793vkk.36.1497912109740; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:41:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.13.7 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 15:41:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <537fb7106e0387c77537f0b1279cbeca@cock.lu> References: <537fb7106e0387c77537f0b1279cbeca@cock.lu> From: Gregory Maxwell Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 22:41:49 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1wC9P9IkyLcuSDLn1uxmYY7TiaY Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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] 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: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 22:41:51 -0000 On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:26 PM, bfd--- via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Several times. It's been debated if unconfirmed transactions are necessary, > methods of doing more private filtering have been suggested, along with > simply not filtering unconfirmed transactions at all. My collected data > suggests that there is very little use of BIP37 at present, based on > incoming connections to nodes I know end up in the DNS seed responses (no > "SPV" clients do their own peer management). Sending just the output addresses of each transaction would use about 1 kilobit/s of data. Sending the entire transactions would use ~14kbit/sec data. These don't seem to be a unsustainable tremendous amount of data to use while an application is running. Doubly so for SPV wallets which are highly vulnerable to unconfirmed transactions, and many which last I heard testing reports on became pretty severely corrupted once given a fake transaction. Can someone make a case why saving no more than those figures would justify the near total loss of privacy that filtering gives? "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.