rich1.0npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-08-21 📝 Original message:On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 01:48:23AM -0400, Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev wrote: > If this is widely deployed + enabled, what is the impact to current wallets > in use? See my comment on the recently-opened issue, reproduced below. In short, not all that much, especially if we adopt my suggestion of having the Core implementation accept and respond to bloom filter requests from non-upgraded clients regardless of whether or not NODE_BLOOM was set until some fixed upgrade deadline in the future. Note that since the last time NODE_BLOOM was proposed, the landcape for (lite-)SPV clients has changed significantly in a few key ways: 1) @mikehearn's [Cartographer](https://github.com/mikehearn/httpseed) seed protocol has been created and deployed in production to allow (lite-)SPV clients to find nodes supporting arbitrary service bits, notable NODE_GETUTXOs. 2) Bloom filter usage has declined significantly, as lite-SPV clients are moving towards using centralized, trusted, servers run by the wallet authors. For instance [Mycelium](https://github.com/mycelium-com/wallet), [GreenBits](https://github.com/greenaddress/GreenBits), [AirBitz](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3etohn/whats_wrong_with_breadwallet/ctirou5), and [Electrum](https://electrum.org/#home) all fall in this category. 3) Bloom filters [have been found](http://eprint.iacr.org/2014/763) to have severe privacy issues, offering essentially no privacy at all. Under many threat models a small number of trusted servers pose less privacy security risk than connecting to random, sybil-attackable, peers using unencrypted connections and giving those peers very accurate wallet contents information. 4) Finally, Bloom filters still have [unsolved DoS attack issues](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hjak7/the_hard_work_of_core_devs_not_xt_makes_bitcoin/cu9xntf?context=3), that will get significantly worse under upcoming blocksize increase proposals. Re: service bit identifier, I'd just pick 1<<3 -https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/6578#issuecomment-133226943 -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000000402fe6fb9ad613c93e12bddfc6ec02a2bd92f002050594d -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 650 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150820/18343e42/attachment.sig>