On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 05:04:41AM -0400, Peter Todd wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 10:48:52AM +0200, Adam Back wrote:
>> Prefix filters offer questionable privacy tradeoffs in my opinion. Same
>> problem as with stealth address proposed use of prefixes.
>
>That's assuming you're doing the propos
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 02:03:29AM -0700, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Adam Back 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 pri
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Adam Back 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 propos
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 10:48:52AM +0200, Adam Back 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 addr
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 d
BIP:
https://github.com/petertodd/bips/blob/bip-node-bloom/bip-node-bloom.mediawiki
Pull-req: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2900
Pretty simple really: service bit NODE_BLOOM is defined to allow nodes
to advertise to their peers that they support bloom filters. The network
protocol vers
6 matches
Mail list logo
