{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1kf0ppcjaguxekg24yx6smgxlu73qn0k8lm0t2wrqc0scpl7u3sgsmf3f58","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-21\n📝 Original message:I don't see any link to data backing up \"Bloom filter usage has declined\nsignificantly\"\n\nIs there actual data showing this feature's use is declining or\nnon-existent?\n\n\nOn Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 1:55 AM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 01:48:23AM -0400, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e If this is widely deployed + enabled, what is the impact to current\n\u003e wallets\n\u003e \u003e in use?\n\u003e\n\u003e See my comment on the recently-opened issue, reproduced below. In short,\n\u003e not all that much, especially if we adopt my suggestion of having the\n\u003e Core implementation accept and respond to bloom filter requests from\n\u003e non-upgraded clients regardless of whether or not NODE_BLOOM was set\n\u003e until some fixed upgrade deadline in the future.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e     Note that since the last time NODE_BLOOM was proposed, the landcape for\n\u003e     (lite-)SPV clients has changed significantly in a few key ways:\n\u003e\n\u003e     1) @mikehearn's [Cartographer](https://github.com/mikehearn/httpseed)\n\u003e     seed protocol has been created and deployed in production to allow\n\u003e     (lite-)SPV clients to find nodes supporting arbitrary service bits,\n\u003e     notable NODE_GETUTXOs.\n\u003e\n\u003e     2) Bloom filter usage has declined significantly, as lite-SPV clients\n\u003e     are moving towards using centralized, trusted, servers run by the\n\u003e wallet\n\u003e     authors. For instance\n\u003e     [Mycelium](https://github.com/mycelium-com/wallet),\n\u003e     [GreenBits](https://github.com/greenaddress/GreenBits),\n\u003e     [AirBitz](\n\u003e https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3etohn/whats_wrong_with_breadwallet/ctirou5\n\u003e ),\n\u003e     and [Electrum](https://electrum.org/#home) all fall in this category.\n\u003e\n\u003e     3) Bloom filters [have been found](http://eprint.iacr.org/2014/763) to\n\u003e     have severe privacy issues, offering essentially no privacy at all.\n\u003e     Under many threat models a small number of trusted servers pose less\n\u003e     privacy security risk than connecting to random, sybil-attackable,\n\u003e peers\n\u003e     using unencrypted connections and giving those peers very accurate\n\u003e     wallet contents information.\n\u003e\n\u003e     4) Finally, Bloom filters still have [unsolved DoS attack\n\u003e     issues](\n\u003e https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hjak7/the_hard_work_of_core_devs_not_xt_makes_bitcoin/cu9xntf?context=3\n\u003e ),\n\u003e     that will get significantly worse under upcoming blocksize increase\n\u003e     proposals.\n\u003e\n\u003e     Re: service bit identifier, I'd just pick 1\u003c\u003c3\n\u003e\n\u003e     -https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/6578#issuecomment-133226943\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n\u003e 00000000000000000402fe6fb9ad613c93e12bddfc6ec02a2bd92f002050594d\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150821/a7e8d410/attachment.html\u003e"}