📅 Original date posted:2017-06-19
📝 Original message: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
adiabat [ARCHIVE] /
npub1sa…y4xsu
2023-06-07 18:02:11
in reply to nevent1q…cp29
Author Public Key
npub1sax5yz8xgp684kl9c5f4kzljunm7u569vgfvuv66xtnl2aqs664s0y4xsuPublished at
2023-06-07 18:02:11Event JSON
{
"id": "ed392af1e70846a5c84153afc559df964ab0d48af676053f12df6b8654d0f149",
"pubkey": "874d4208e640747adbe5c5135b0bf2e4f7ee53456212ce335a32e7f57410d6ab",
"created_at": 1686160931,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"55a56c7ebba05dd9613a9ae00ae6d5bbfa4f7fd0155fa447a7d09d61ff658a4b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"87af0521511bd8d3ad2196378b9f3f32d7f52d0de42fad65e2c3dbf71306f6f0",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"9a463e0fab8963b013698c15a0f2449d19c97f3b88458e5874095b5006df9a0c"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-06-19\n📝 Original message:This has been brought up several times in the past, and I agree with\nJonas' comments about users being unaware of the privacy losses due to\nBIP37. One thing also mentioned before but not int he current thread\nis that the entire concept of SPV is not applicable to unconfirmed\ntransactions. SPV uses the fact that miners have committed to a\ntransaction with work to give the user an assurance that the\ntransaction is valid; if the transaction were invalid, it would be\ncostly for the miner to include it in a block with valid work.\n\nTransactions in the mempool have no such assurance, and are costlessly\nforgeable by anyone, including your ISP. I wasn't involved in any\ndebate over BIP37 when it was being written up, so I don't know how\nmempool filtering got in, but it never made any sense to me. The fact\nthat lots of lite clients are using this is a problem as it gives\nfalse assurance to users that there is a valid but yet-to-be-confirmed\ntransaction sending them money.\n\n-Tadge",
"sig": "75277c43a925bf8d68ab64d598bf65802ee9a602ed9df72b1ca493287bbca10c02357dcf0ea3529a085359758221e77d6ef3041434816f5f613ef832adcef17e"
}