From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WsxTG-0000IN-7M for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 16:58:26 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.220.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.172; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-vc0-f172.google.com; Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com ([209.85.220.172]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WsxTF-0004YZ-9g for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 16:58:26 +0000 Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id lf12so3374819vcb.17 for ; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 09:58:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.28.205 with SMTP id d13mr5217949veh.55.1402073899817; Fri, 06 Jun 2014 09:58:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.75.165 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Jun 2014 09:58:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140606164639.GB14891@savin> References: <20140606081933.GA29458@savin> <20140606084852.GA30247@netbook.cypherspace.org> <20140606090441.GA19256@savin> <20140606104543.GA31085@netbook.cypherspace.org> <20140606164639.GB14891@savin> Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 09:58:19 -0700 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Peter Todd 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: 1WsxTF-0004YZ-9g Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bloom bait 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, 06 Jun 2014 16:58:26 -0000 On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > transactions against. Where they differ is that bloom filters has O(n) > scaling, where n is the size of a block, and prefix filters have O(log n) > scaling with slightly(1) higher k. Again, if you *don't* use brute forcing > in conjunction with prefixes they have no different transactional graph > privacy than bloom filters, Huh? How are you thinking that something that gets put in transactions and burned forever into the blockchain that lets you (statically) link txout ownership is "no different" from something which is shared directly with a couple peers, potentially peers you trust and which are run by yourself or your organization?