📅 Original date posted:2017-06-20
📝 Original message:On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 00:41:49 CEST Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Can someone make a case why saving no more than those figures would
> justify the near total loss of privacy that filtering gives?
First, your figures are wrong and also fall out of the sky with no
justification. Can’t debunk something that is pure garbage.
Second, stating that a bloom filter is a "total loss of privacy" is equally
baseless and doesn’t need debunking.
> "Because they already do it" isn't a good argument when talking about
> a new protocol feature; things which already do BIP37 will presumably
> continue to already do BIP37.
I think you just made the case for completely rejecting this proposal based
on the fact that nobody will use it, BIP37 already exists.
Not sure if I agree with that, improvements are always useful and we should
be able to come up with replacements.
But arguing against a feature you don’t like, especiallyh one used by
millions every day, is a sad way to stiffle innovation, Greg.
--
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
Tom Zander [ARCHIVE] /
npub1mj…dxnq7
2023-06-07 18:02:13
in reply to nevent1q…5lrd
Author Public Key
npub1mju50kqcm07heu967fkq6h4kq666xgekc4yrldf7q52xx9vr8jnsrdxnq7Published at
2023-06-07 18:02:13Event JSON
{
"id": "7d0eec6f17b7f9b6e48f6bcdf1a8ec8ee52b57a49e76777f1367f7ddce9a5d00",
"pubkey": "dcb947d818dbfd7cf0baf26c0d5eb606b5a32336c5483fb53e05146315833ca7",
"created_at": 1686160933,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"55a56c7ebba05dd9613a9ae00ae6d5bbfa4f7fd0155fa447a7d09d61ff658a4b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"495788491b41d87f4b57cd83620ce1b83d216a126bc5dac8896e36868e18f8f6",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-06-20\n📝 Original message:On Tuesday, 20 June 2017 00:41:49 CEST Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev \nwrote:\n\u003e Can someone make a case why saving no more than those figures would\n\u003e justify the near total loss of privacy that filtering gives?\n\nFirst, your figures are wrong and also fall out of the sky with no \njustification. Can’t debunk something that is pure garbage.\n\nSecond, stating that a bloom filter is a \"total loss of privacy\" is equally \nbaseless and doesn’t need debunking.\n\n\u003e \"Because they already do it\" isn't a good argument when talking about\n\u003e a new protocol feature; things which already do BIP37 will presumably\n\u003e continue to already do BIP37.\n\nI think you just made the case for completely rejecting this proposal based \non the fact that nobody will use it, BIP37 already exists.\n\nNot sure if I agree with that, improvements are always useful and we should \nbe able to come up with replacements.\nBut arguing against a feature you don’t like, especiallyh one used by \nmillions every day, is a sad way to stiffle innovation, Greg.\n-- \nTom Zander\nBlog: https://zander.github.io\nVlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel",
"sig": "cdd87bf8e74266816db905a3f6f67d6e9daa6513d2d414ab9b983ea7c39e230e188d68c4210ba1331435ef04367b2ec317e1ceb08cd03b660d529e85c53486a7"
}