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 98150A95 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 16:48:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk1-f178.google.com (mail-qk1-f178.google.com [209.85.222.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C9708A0 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 16:48:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk1-f178.google.com with SMTP id g18so39506624qkl.3 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 09:48:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=enWcLEDACaPsK7K26XX4ANY5l5G5R8Gn4/r/42kxdDM=; b=WerXNyhSihGlO+0Ke6CpBsdROfPVoqDC3zYg19/4r7mGCtWV5jzNnW/Y/OgmX9vSgM L16I9NPyZK5RVpIOqHMRvVbhGMVlreqNZifS6MT0R+Sq25WohcmqnadvoQNY3RX95/bn RdW7TxuE3m+SQ8UiPqs3uT+5TQ/Yi4l5EhleN4i4AoaIxTTT74o0yMoeu1ACJjpi1ZVp u1wj4qxQ5k/N1Swy4CaPBqCRBhtEB2tqQYZgjqNLsSGEplsVjwvGhMYKQ4ANebY8Nrmg zxAK7WB2yArpitDxjW9x305jnd20ysXAUNlwY97mB/D7LpRG106JO7CZE8L93bXMnd11 kg6g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=enWcLEDACaPsK7K26XX4ANY5l5G5R8Gn4/r/42kxdDM=; b=SqjJK49cf7vOjrHmdtCj4uJEJ9groNKjk3KRqadYQDgz77GJPixb6DfQ47DA1MAu/4 v9km7UHb59D6ZxWVIvSqg/Bq1H2BejD1D3iqG77PTYeg1AB3p5xAQzmEiqP2TvDyPVHu qTpghJy/dkzAH90KJQvVYGlzm0pr5zQAwZFzSFKBALZaAFTUlgs5LNV+HFZXty/U+4aP +NEmBTVkK91N9dR6IO6tySKkCt+jy2pGPQcwLMm2kLxz/W3gMwDdI4jKNYrTb5PJn85S 5SWeXQBxNBtE24UsfPyh9DCoJ0PKhx/qwpoksgNyfmqU6NeJl75YC6H8chM6f33Xl54o QQAA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVgPcA9AhOO08hO9karwE24kmV71eG0vBGASMANQU+kjaPWlvP6 n2ulJmzlNqsUZFS6WrgaJM5DuEHKERg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxZfZUSB+t9jKffJ0B2JrfCnjgi4HrLdxg7PF1Y/ZK2K0rKKDKJj+kC62UnTYPexnkm/GSmdw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:15b3:: with SMTP id f19mr61776124qkk.314.1564159718980; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 09:48:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18d:8a01:1110:7935:f8a1:2865:8b47? ([2601:18d:8a01:1110:7935:f8a1:2865:8b47]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l123sm23029273qkc.9.2019.07.26.09.48.37 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 26 Jul 2019 09:48:37 -0700 (PDT) To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <59fad2b6-9b15-ffec-116e-91d27ce29f80@mattcorallo.com> From: Chris Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 12:48:36 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 14:38:34 +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: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 16:48:40 -0000 On 7/23/19 10:47 AM, Andreas Schildbach via bitcoin-dev wrote: > 3) Afaik, it enforces/encourages address re-use. This stems from the > fact that the server decides on the filter and in particular on the > false positive rate. On wallets with many addresses, a hardcoded filter > will be too blurry and thus each block will be matched. So wallets that > follow the "one address per incoming payment" pattern (e.g. HD wallets) > at some point will be forced to wrap their key chains back to the > beginning. If I'm wrong on this one please let me know. Maybe someone who knows better can confirm but I thought I read the the fp rate on the filter was chosen assuming a wallet would average a certain number of addresses (ie, they assumed use of an HD wallet). Your criticism might be valid for wallets that well exceed the average.