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 <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) 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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	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: <CAAS2fgTKiPMPOazNTPL8+3Ov1xOj=H+yK3u+sd_pe=nyDSPgTw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bloom bait
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, 06 Jun 2014 16:58:26 -0000

On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> 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?