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 71936D13 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 15:16:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io1-f53.google.com (mail-io1-f53.google.com [209.85.166.53]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CED1224 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 15:16:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io1-f53.google.com with SMTP id k20so74674958ios.10 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 08:16:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=R4w2OAGrXMEKhRBNKTZL1bMomVl+ZRAOaGmxcCtBPPA=; b=h/Ehagy9PIL6/zF2sYMwBTd8YantZn5sgT9LPEJAoS7ha1TxWPZO5fXEJQVI1hnDFW B6E2J5302WEYNQYRiepb7iggfuyJ0Z5ufOeF0GGnpMJSZ9U3iOQIyhuf6yi0dbKD+Z9g rO9UIeIanLcNRkEpwa1LlTXhHpmXtP9VOJxl/Ww3syxPm2Yc9W6ZliIIiLymyh1EesMr ymBZN4CK+xf9olOz8p50ynQ0EGfGhUcocWERCB9+ghgxRnqfENr7nPz02jcej/sBTHV7 tBn1myQvqbx7/BkvMN7gDe8sxaSpntODdDLcBbE+Tt/oMBWnKxqK5GExoQACf/tmeaQ8 eYZg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=R4w2OAGrXMEKhRBNKTZL1bMomVl+ZRAOaGmxcCtBPPA=; b=eaDMuRdkja46wA8aZq3E8v2LwjLwUOs50ei6x3AHvT88ABpyvKRQbvNbfWHX8QqLsi Rh7GTv0hxBOZebmzQwWjR7hLoMzP2iT3Yx998xxij2r0bsoOFaHyDodNJICiVzNPAaZP 6CTjjJkB9GLg37yZLF151j0l247AbX0HojJDIJ8ZT3xVIMdDfIJ9sfb6MYep+JJNqhJ+ tXR/jenPIEcNRvt2X22cLsVZwmDYsgED6+h3gYDMPV6HU7vDrFeek7Z+BM9kOY+RTjak Mc1fei56UosI9gpjGtbLlbpL1A5vbET5dx1Lxg5e/0ZZTXESlF0WtscqbH3wmPoJtM0J NhOA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUQ6O/0DPqBAezGQjdDUPzzSUrV9qNkrRfsQ2oJVunxwCrFu4DK BzhWe46QXeWeLshYhw1a5DbYLlgC9n0i4a+W+NEWMHm7 X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyG44BgLYVnk2aQCXvuTcMNaFYGH+Gn2iSCpAPUZyfxyUu42TqZ245l7C4KEBXV0qB4kmirMJXi+SY582BgsTs= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:915a:: with SMTP id y26mr66319416ioq.207.1563808561443; Mon, 22 Jul 2019 08:16:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <59fad2b6-9b15-ffec-116e-91d27ce29f80@mattcorallo.com> In-Reply-To: From: Dustin Dettmer Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 08:15:49 -0700 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Tom Harding Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cd3be6058e468dd7" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, 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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 16:40:07 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core to disable Bloom-based Filtering by default 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, 22 Jul 2019 15:16:11 -0000 --000000000000cd3be6058e468dd7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Has someone built an analysis of how much extra bandwidth CFB uses over bloom filters? Obviously an active merchant in an impoverished country paying data rates per MB will never be able to afford CFB =E2=80=94 so those people are being= cut out of Bitcoin entirely. I suppose the plan is they will rely on custodial services now? But if someone receives say, 5 tx a day, how much more bandwidth precisely will CFB require over bloom? On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:10 AM Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On 7/20/19 10:46 AM, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > (less trustful and privacy-violating) alternative > > over the coming years. > > The same paper that established the 'privacy-violating' conventional > wisdom presented mitigations which have seen little exploration. > https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/763.pdf > > Meanwhile we have custodial LN, the L-BTC altcoin and, today, a massive > push into infrastructure for fully custodial accounts. > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --000000000000cd3be6058e468dd7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Has someone built an analysis of how much extra band= width CFB uses over bloom filters?

<= div dir=3D"auto">Obviously an active merchant in an impoverished country pa= ying data rates per MB will never be able to afford CFB =E2=80=94 so those = people are being cut out of Bitcoin entirely. I suppose the plan is they wi= ll rely on custodial services now?

But if someone receives say, 5 tx a day, how much more bandwidth= precisely will CFB require over bloom?

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:10 AM= Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On 7/20/19 10:46 AM, Matt Corallo via bitc= oin-dev wrote:
> (less trustful and privacy-violating) alternative
> over the coming years.

The same paper that established the 'privacy-violating' conventiona= l
wisdom presented mitigations which have seen little exploration.
https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/763.pdf

Meanwhile we have custodial LN, the L-BTC altcoin and, today, a massive push into infrastructure for fully custodial accounts.


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000cd3be6058e468dd7--