📅 Original date posted:2017-06-19 📝 Original message:Most SPV wallets make it ...

Andreas Schildbach [ARCHIVE] /

npub1xg2…dsv7

2023-06-07 18:02:11

in reply to nevent1q…urdh

📅 Original date posted:2017-06-19
📝 Original message:Most SPV wallets make it quite clear that unconfirmed transactions are
just that.

On 06/19/2017 06:36 PM, adiabat via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> This has been brought up several times in the past, and I agree with
> Jonas' comments about users being unaware of the privacy losses due to
> BIP37. One thing also mentioned before but not int he current thread
> is that the entire concept of SPV is not applicable to unconfirmed
> transactions. SPV uses the fact that miners have committed to a
> transaction with work to give the user an assurance that the
> transaction is valid; if the transaction were invalid, it would be
> costly for the miner to include it in a block with valid work.
>
> Transactions in the mempool have no such assurance, and are costlessly
> forgeable by anyone, including your ISP. I wasn't involved in any
> debate over BIP37 when it was being written up, so I don't know how
> mempool filtering got in, but it never made any sense to me. The fact
> that lots of lite clients are using this is a problem as it gives
> false assurance to users that there is a valid but yet-to-be-confirmed
> transaction sending them money.
>
> -Tadge
>

Author Public Key

npub1xg2m84malu0cfm4444r0kysx4rgk27e75aj6sz6538kw8fcz627qeadsv7

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 18:02:11

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "71ee18b8a95b2b4d8052a8ae7c0ca83c7c1583112ca92e152e4e67b1f7d024e9", "pubkey": "3215b3d77dff1f84eeb5ad46fb1206a8d1657b3ea765a80b5489ece3a702d2bc", "created_at": 1686160931, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "55a56c7ebba05dd9613a9ae00ae6d5bbfa4f7fd0155fa447a7d09d61ff658a4b", "", "root" ], [ "e", "ed392af1e70846a5c84153afc559df964ab0d48af676053f12df6b8654d0f149", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "874d4208e640747adbe5c5135b0bf2e4f7ee53456212ce335a32e7f57410d6ab" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-06-19\n📝 Original message:Most SPV wallets make it quite clear that unconfirmed transactions are\njust that.\n\n\nOn 06/19/2017 06:36 PM, adiabat via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e This has been brought up several times in the past, and I agree with\n\u003e Jonas' comments about users being unaware of the privacy losses due to\n\u003e BIP37. One thing also mentioned before but not int he current thread\n\u003e is that the entire concept of SPV is not applicable to unconfirmed\n\u003e transactions. SPV uses the fact that miners have committed to a\n\u003e transaction with work to give the user an assurance that the\n\u003e transaction is valid; if the transaction were invalid, it would be\n\u003e costly for the miner to include it in a block with valid work.\n\u003e \n\u003e Transactions in the mempool have no such assurance, and are costlessly\n\u003e forgeable by anyone, including your ISP. I wasn't involved in any\n\u003e debate over BIP37 when it was being written up, so I don't know how\n\u003e mempool filtering got in, but it never made any sense to me. The fact\n\u003e that lots of lite clients are using this is a problem as it gives\n\u003e false assurance to users that there is a valid but yet-to-be-confirmed\n\u003e transaction sending them money.\n\u003e \n\u003e -Tadge\n\u003e", "sig": "06c99b9dfa474d8793ca89c4c99785f23142f7a83d42579fa17dace64b011ad460873d2918edfb248f1a33ce8af63fafb9100be055a33b13f3db07e4a200ce78" }