On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 02:52:10PM -0400, Peter via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Hi, > > I believe two wallets. Andreas' Android Bitcoin wallet and BRD are > significant users of node_bloom. > > Privacy is a matter of individual choice in the current protocol. Why not > let people provide this network service? I don't see why it should be > end-of-life if it provides value.
With that patch people are still free to choose to provide bloom filtering services by setting -peerbloomfilters=1 > I believe there's a network security obtained by having a large quantity of > people following the Bitcoin headers based on longest weighted chain. As a > means of nullifying potential miner initiated hard forks (like S2X). There really isn't due to sybil attacks; we already have good reason to believe that the Bitcoin network is subject to them by deanonymization/chainanalysis services. Indeed there's a good argument that creating services that are vulnerable to sybil attacks encourages them by making them succesful at something. That creates its own risks, for instance the risk that the sybil attacker will themselves screw up and cause a bunch of nodes to go offline at once. -- https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
