[Bitcoin-development] NODE_BLOOM service bit
pete at petertodd.org
Fri Jun 6 09:11:34 UTC 2014
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 02:03:29AM -0700, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Adam Back <adam at cypherspace.org> wrote:
> > Advertising NODE BLOOM as a service sounds good.
> > But the critique of bloom filters, I am not so sure prefix filters are
> > better. Prefix filters offer questionable privacy tradeoffs in my opinion.
> > Same problem as with stealth address proposed use of prefixes.
> > All for scalability, efficiency and decentralization but not ideally at the
> > expense of nuking privacy. The effects on privacy are cumulative, and
> > affect everyone not just the user. Same pattern of local decision, global
> > effect as with reused addresses.
> The performance Bytecoin/Monero/Fantom/etc. systems that use ECDH
> addresses for all transactions seem to be suggesting that the prefixes
> aren't really needed.
> At least with current system rules doing the ECDH for each transaction
> seems pretty reasonable.
Yup. Obelisk's indexing is sufficiently fast that they hadn't even
bothered making Dark Wallet store transaction information between
sessions until recently. Prefix brute-forcing isn't yet implemented,
although prefix filters is being implemented for lookups in general. (at
the very least it gives the server operators some valuable plausible
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 685 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the bitcoin-dev