{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-08-21\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:38:19PM -0700, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Motivation\n\u003e \u003e ==========\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e BIP 37 did not specify a service bit for the bloom filter service, thus\n\u003e \u003e implicitly assuming that all nodes that serve peers data support it.\n\u003e \u003e However, the connection filtering algorithm proposed in BIP 37, and\n\u003e \u003e implemented in several clients today, has been shown to provide little\n\u003e \u003e to no privacy, as well as being a large DoS risk on some nodes. Thus,\n\u003e \u003e allowing node operators to disable connection bloom filtering is a\n\u003e \u003e much-needed feature.\n\u003e \n\u003e I'd reference that paper on bloom filters re: the \"little to no privacy\"\n\u003e issue. There's also a post in the bitcoinj mailing list somewhere IIRC\n\u003e talking about the default settings, and how they don't provide any\n\u003e privacy.\n\nOh, and we should also point out that Bloom filters have scaling issues,\nas each application of the filter has to scan the whole blockchain -\nwith future blocksize increases these issues increase, in some proposals\nquite dramatically. The underlying idea also conflicts with some\nproposals to \"shard\" the blockchain, again suggesting that we need a bit\nto handle future upgrades to more scalable designs.\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n00000000000000000402fe6fb9ad613c93e12bddfc6ec02a2bd92f002050594d\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 650 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150820/17f5c150/attachment-0001.sig\u003e"}