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 <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) 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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	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: <CANEZrP32M-hSU-a1DA5aTQXsx-6425sTeKW-m-cSUuXCYf+zuQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALqxMTE2doZjbsUxd-e09+euiG6bt_J=_BwKY_Ni3MNK6BiW1Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP32M-hSU-a1DA5aTQXsx-6425sTeKW-m-cSUuXCYf+zuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:50:11 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSEqYNiGFk0pZ-hT_0zR7_Nh1OUvyfFd-DE=a-cdzgWwQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] bloom filtering, privacy
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:50:18 -0000

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> 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.