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 A0324BF4 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 03:35:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qt0-f179.google.com (mail-qt0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 152AD252 for ; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 03:35:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f179.google.com with SMTP id w1so23979922qtg.2 for ; Thu, 01 Jun 2017 20:35:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=8WTDX28dh0IJ/IOzVnkR9VLSujK10vXT1218fHRJVpc=; b=QsKmXEXBBftX7vH8hnoeIAl7g9IYObqcayZdfaukFDIlUdz2zs6whqlb3Jo06Laizw Jm25Z3Vvah3sGolG4RfbwePKq8aLTOZd3Z3r+3QXE53otOCNQHDNOKVdsYcRtN63dBRx Zll6ZEw0F8/QLMtiuiHx9IVUuQgk9Lcpt735TpB752tu365i6M/Ee40+pLHciO9nzFdc 3f/7yZXUt4gJVtynNHVF6/zkTI/70F32v2vYrxcynFPf6Nms/3O+1JN4J+H22O5ybrnn i8y+YQaiiCOKNXHeGTeIQatEW8ljjDqmDiCvDTo3zW0/vIuWBQDW58WkfmeuvklDGg5R FUZQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=8WTDX28dh0IJ/IOzVnkR9VLSujK10vXT1218fHRJVpc=; b=d7qxtEfIuxiAm6vMGLv47212X7eN24cvDet1TUZhnw5cLQjDWfF1c3XtoTLHEGOqY2 lujrfTGRoQDGTNwH5AuTNPLuIzOxzazr8oMV+w0H44qltXGx5WyLDHdQcrmzwkOHY4zW u9csXbdvYRpa36z6d8FuoO9/h1Txv3hyBZypWk2KH5MPS48qo8Dgr/WqxIzdkPkbVijI gNX/IR/bMU4WJk35GWffhA463FLknuLDRKMoQAvdUkWcVzvmKlNDhXC4SqieWwXxvnXc qgkrmhF1m06lVCwP7QEZydrOCF14moa44CZhr7onoLGTmlhP/54AMoBXeEY9USBfQ6TB Byuw== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCLt7pSworQYtgG/Y7lx9uxmQUC/3pu+u2qRmK7I1/IqG7tLill i6KkpnfHEhp/iKzbBtVZLN7+yNrk7zDe X-Received: by 10.237.35.132 with SMTP id j4mr6139381qtc.215.1496374530027; Thu, 01 Jun 2017 20:35:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: blueadept@gmail.com Received: by 10.12.144.139 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 20:35:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <73a6d59a-7e79-5d48-40cd-5c6f59abc122@gmail.com> From: Alex Akselrod Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 23:35:29 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: a8iGzX83N4PEUqAzU2m1n2MPMhs Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113c1adc5034950550f1d8ca" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM 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: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 03:46:02 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Compact Client Side Filtering for Light Clients 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: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 03:35:31 -0000 --001a113c1adc5034950550f1d8ca Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I agree with Greg and Laolu; BIP-37 filtering for transactions is no better than for blocks and completely destroys privacy. A constant stream of transactions is OK, but even cheaper for light clients would be Laolu's proposal of streaming more tx data than existing inv messages but less than existing tx messages. We could make a bit field of things to include in every inv-with-metadata message, such as: - witness data - scriptSig data pushes - scriptPubKey - hash of scriptPubKey (unnecessary if full scriptPubKey is sent) - scriptPubKey data pushes - etc. This way a full node might be able to tell what application (or type of application) a light client is running, but not the client's addresses or outputs, except maybe when the client originates transactions. On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Chris via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > On 06/01/2017 06:10 PM, Olaoluwa Osuntokun via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > > >> One aspect which isn't in this BIP draft is direct support for > unconfirmed > >> transactions. I consider such a feature an important UX feature for > mobile > >> phones, and something which I've personally seen as an important > >> UX-experience when on-boarding new users to Bitcoin. > > > > Totally agree. My first thought is maybe you could keep bip37 filtering > > as optional for unconfirmed transactions. Since you're only interested > > Really bad for privacy. Data for transactions at the tip is only > 14kb/s-- potentially less if segwit is in use and you're not getting > witnesses. Is that really that burdensome? > > FWIW, leaving a mobile browser just running while pointed at some > websites seems to use more traffic than that just loading advertising. > :) > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a113c1adc5034950550f1d8ca Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I agree with Greg and Laolu; BIP-37 filtering for tra= nsactions is no better than for blocks and completely destroys privacy.
=
A constant stream of transactions is OK, but even cheaper for light cli= ents would be Laolu's proposal of streaming more tx data than existing = inv messages but less than existing tx messages.

We could make a bit= field of things to include in every inv-with-metadata message, such as:- witness data
- scriptSig data pushes
- scriptPubKey
- hash of s= criptPubKey (unnecessary if full scriptPubKey is sent)
- scriptPubKey da= ta pushes
- etc.

This way a full node might be ab= le to tell what application (or type of application) a light client is runn= ing, but not the client's addresses or outputs, except maybe when the c= lient originates transactions.

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Gregory= Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfound= ation.org> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Chris via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On 06/01/2017 06:10 PM, Olaoluwa Osuntokun via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
>> One aspect which isn't in this BIP draft is direct support for= unconfirmed
>> transactions. I consider such a feature an important UX feature fo= r mobile
>> phones, and something which I've personally seen as an importa= nt
>> UX-experience when on-boarding new users to Bitcoin.
>
> Totally agree. My first thought is maybe you could keep bip37 filterin= g
> as optional for unconfirmed transactions. Since you're only intere= sted

Really bad for privacy. Data for transactions at the tip is only
14kb/s-- potentially less if segwit is in use and you're not getting witnesses. Is that really that burdensome?

FWIW, leaving a mobile browser just running while pointed at some
websites seems to use more traffic than that just loading advertising.
:)
______________________________= _________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--001a113c1adc5034950550f1d8ca--