{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1ac86vemj7ce5z8jyxt39rna3tvwql6xd30ha3vxcd6esysp23d9qrlswfj","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1ac86vemj7ce5z8jyxt39rna3tvwql6xd30ha3vxcd6esysp23d9qrlswfj","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-02-20\n📝 Original message:I saw there was some discussion on this topic on the bitcoinj list.\n\n(I dont think I can post there without subscribing probably.)\n\nSomeone had posted about the lack of privacy provision from the\ncurrent implementation parameters and real-world factors similar to\ndescribed in this academic paper\n\nhttp://eprint.iacr.org/2014/763.pdf\n\nMike had posted a detailed response on the topic on why its complex\nand becomes bandwidth inefficient to improve it usefully.\n\nhttps://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bitcoinj/Ys13qkTwcNg/9qxnhwnkeoIJ\n\nThe basic summary of which I think is that its not even intended to\nprovide any practical privacy protection, its just about compacting\nthe query for a set of addresses.\n\nSo I was wondering what about changing to committing a bloom filter of\nthe addresses in the block.  Its seems surprising no one thought of it\nthat way before (as it seems obvious when you hear it) but that seems\nto address the privacy issues as the user can fetch the block bloom\nfilters and then scan it in complete privacy.  (Someone appeared on\nbitcoin wizards IRC a while back and made this observation.)\n\n\u003eFrom there its a question of fetching the candidate TXOs.\n\nAm I missing anything?\n\nAdam"}