From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YOriT-0005FX-Vh for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:50:18 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.171; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f171.google.com; Received: from mail-ig0-f171.google.com ([209.85.213.171]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YOriT-0001oy-9G for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:50:17 +0000 Received: by mail-ig0-f171.google.com with SMTP id h15so4831437igd.4 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:50:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.79.84 with SMTP id q20mr13122599ick.48.1424454612054; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:50:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.107.16.80 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:50:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:50:11 +0000 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Mike Hearn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gmaxwell[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1YOriT-0001oy-9G Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] bloom filtering, privacy X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:50:18 -0000 On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Mike Hearn wrote: > And then what? So you know the block matches. But with reasonable FP rates > every block will match at least a few transactions (this is already the case This approach needs a filter set with a lower FP rate. It doesn't depend on having a high FP rate for privacy (which is good, since counting on filter false positives seems to more or less fail to deliver actual privacy in any case.) Larger filters mean a somewhat higher baseline bandwidth, though when users do not reuse addresses and have more addresses than there are txouts in the block the gap is narrower. > Ah, I see, I didn't catch that this scheme relies on UTXO commitments This is talking about a committed bloom filter. Not a committed UTXO set.