📅 Original date posted:2014-06-06
📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> Again, you *don't* have to use brute-force prefix selection. You can
> just as easily give your peer multiple prefixes, each of which
> corresponds at least one address in your wallet with some false positive
> rate. I explained all this in detail in my original blockchain data
> privacy writeup months ago.
I'm not trying to pick nits about all the options, I just found it
surprising that you were saying that data published in a super public
manner is no different than something used between nodes.
> I explained all this in detail in my original blockchain data privacy writeup months ago.
Communication is a two way street, Adam and I (and others) are
earnestly trying— that we're not following your arguments may be a
suggestion that they need to be communicated somewhat differently.
I'm still failing to see the usefulness of having any prefix filtering
for DH-private outputs. It really complicates the security story— in
particular you don't know _now_ what activities will turn your prior
information leaks into compromising ones retrospectivelly, and doesn't
seem at very necessary for scanning performance.
Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1f2…crwet
2023-06-07 15:22:26
in reply to nevent1q…ae4f
Author Public Key
npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetPublished at
2023-06-07 15:22:26Event JSON
{
"id": "a7b19ab2d10fff36752affaef3b9bf975d75276a7ae3bb6a5e8479594363feb1",
"pubkey": "4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73",
"created_at": 1686151346,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"df3d18d64e73f07b6b6d311937333f2da5d3b900cf41707a8a6a2ae0d391d04e",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b309bb81d9d391ade0208b0b8a2032f745307b3d0475912a48cbdf67c0134a3e",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-06-06\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Again, you *don't* have to use brute-force prefix selection. You can\n\u003e just as easily give your peer multiple prefixes, each of which\n\u003e corresponds at least one address in your wallet with some false positive\n\u003e rate. I explained all this in detail in my original blockchain data\n\u003e privacy writeup months ago.\n\nI'm not trying to pick nits about all the options, I just found it\nsurprising that you were saying that data published in a super public\nmanner is no different than something used between nodes.\n\n\u003e I explained all this in detail in my original blockchain data privacy writeup months ago.\n\nCommunication is a two way street, Adam and I (and others) are\nearnestly trying— that we're not following your arguments may be a\nsuggestion that they need to be communicated somewhat differently.\n\nI'm still failing to see the usefulness of having any prefix filtering\nfor DH-private outputs. It really complicates the security story— in\nparticular you don't know _now_ what activities will turn your prior\ninformation leaks into compromising ones retrospectivelly, and doesn't\nseem at very necessary for scanning performance.",
"sig": "e92386c3e05f3aa01b1ad310a8a8612f42e75979c048ae79dc6c3cf3fff46e000238640a8421600da6e47d6789097584503f79eaa5095b3edb1f40845a2f41f9"
}