📅 Original date posted:2015-08-24 📝 Original message:On 08/24/15 18:15, Eric ...

Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] /

npub1e46…xmcu

2023-06-07 17:37:41

in reply to nevent1q…9r5r

📅 Original date posted:2015-08-24
📝 Original message:On 08/24/15 18:15, Eric Lombrozo wrote:
> It would be very useful to not only be able to switch filtering on and
> off globally...but to be able to switch on a per-connection basis.

I'm not sure what your reasoning for this is? If your concern is that
someone starts DoS attacking you with bloom-based attacks, you should
just disconnect them as an attacker, and announce that you support bloom
filtering globally. If you want to serve your own nodes, then I dont
think this BIP doesnt allow you to do so, just needs an implementation.

> But
> then again, perhaps it would be smarter to ditch the whole bloom filter
> thing in favor of an actual client/server architecture with proper
> authentication and access controls.

Trustless (and non-privacy-losing) proposals welcome :)

> The RPC was supposed to be this client/server architecture...but in
> practice it sucks so bad for doing anything beyond administering a node
> instance you fully control yourself that I eschewed it entirely in my
> wallet design.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 11:07 AM Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
> BIP 111 was assigned, pull request (with the proposed changes) available
> at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/183
>
> Matt
>
> On 08/24/15 18:00, Peter Todd wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 05:37:51PM +0000, Matt Corallo via
> bitcoin-dev wrote:
> >> Its more of a statement of "in the future, we expect things to happen
> >> which would make this an interesting thing to do, so we state
> here that
> >> it is not against spec to do so". Could reword it as "NODE_BLOOM is
> >> distinct from NODE_NETWORK, and it is legal to advertise
> NODE_BLOOM but
> >> not NODE_NETWORK (though there is little reason to do so now, some
> >> proposals may make this more useful in the future)"?
> >
> > ACK
> >
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

Author Public Key

npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcu

Seen on

wss://relay.noswhere.com

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 17:37:41

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "2c6c44150679ca8f349273a8e7b44725e5e71792052becd3f6ed9bb27ca42ea5", "pubkey": "cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba", "created_at": 1686159461, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "24b0a1bf3dfc9fc9f3f6739b5fab50dd1ce2799fc8ef26378cae8652e75e5fc8", "", "root" ], [ "e", "7575943b02c4d122f9a47213413cabf0ffafef0d90768493ee141ffb3184933e", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "e899768d254f3537af7e26455968583632d0ab0bd4c780445eacfa087ac80d8f" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-08-24\n📝 Original message:On 08/24/15 18:15, Eric Lombrozo wrote:\n\u003e It would be very useful to not only be able to switch filtering on and\n\u003e off globally...but to be able to switch on a per-connection basis.\n\nI'm not sure what your reasoning for this is? If your concern is that\nsomeone starts DoS attacking you with bloom-based attacks, you should\njust disconnect them as an attacker, and announce that you support bloom\nfiltering globally. If you want to serve your own nodes, then I dont\nthink this BIP doesnt allow you to do so, just needs an implementation.\n\n\u003e But\n\u003e then again, perhaps it would be smarter to ditch the whole bloom filter\n\u003e thing in favor of an actual client/server architecture with proper\n\u003e authentication and access controls.\n\nTrustless (and non-privacy-losing) proposals welcome :)\n\n\u003e The RPC was supposed to be this client/server architecture...but in\n\u003e practice it sucks so bad for doing anything beyond administering a node\n\u003e instance you fully control yourself that I eschewed it entirely in my\n\u003e wallet design.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e On Mon, Aug 24, 2015, 11:07 AM Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e BIP 111 was assigned, pull request (with the proposed changes) available\n\u003e at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/183\n\u003e \n\u003e Matt\n\u003e \n\u003e On 08/24/15 18:00, Peter Todd wrote:\n\u003e \u003e On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 05:37:51PM +0000, Matt Corallo via\n\u003e bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Its more of a statement of \"in the future, we expect things to happen\n\u003e \u003e\u003e which would make this an interesting thing to do, so we state\n\u003e here that\n\u003e \u003e\u003e it is not against spec to do so\". Could reword it as \"NODE_BLOOM is\n\u003e \u003e\u003e distinct from NODE_NETWORK, and it is legal to advertise\n\u003e NODE_BLOOM but\n\u003e \u003e\u003e not NODE_NETWORK (though there is little reason to do so now, some\n\u003e \u003e\u003e proposals may make this more useful in the future)\"?\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e ACK\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e", "sig": "7cb33b5bcdaedb73427ac8978a38f90890f022ba50f14b8a1198886bd19151e440a2c90cb85f558de00cc6af6f0fc6e7f41500c784e80e52ffb02c4be3e08666" }