bfd at cock.lu [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2017-06-20 📝 Original message:On 2017-06-20 12:52, Tom ...
📅 Original date posted:2017-06-20
📝 Original message:On 2017-06-20 12:52, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Second, stating that a bloom filter is a "total loss of privacy" is
> equally
> baseless and doesn’t need debunking.
>
"On the Privacy Provisions of Bloom Filters in Lightweight Bitcoin
Clients"
> We show analytically and empirically that the reliance on Bloom filters
> within existing SPV clients leaks considerable information about the
> addresses of Bitcoin users. Our results show that an SPV client who
> uses a modest number of Bitcoin addresses (e.g., < 20) risks revealing
> almost all of his addresses.
https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/763.pdf
📝 Original message:On 2017-06-20 12:52, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Second, stating that a bloom filter is a "total loss of privacy" is
> equally
> baseless and doesn’t need debunking.
>
"On the Privacy Provisions of Bloom Filters in Lightweight Bitcoin
Clients"
> We show analytically and empirically that the reliance on Bloom filters
> within existing SPV clients leaks considerable information about the
> addresses of Bitcoin users. Our results show that an SPV client who
> uses a modest number of Bitcoin addresses (e.g., < 20) risks revealing
> almost all of his addresses.
https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/763.pdf