📅 Original date posted:2015-02-20
📝 Original message:On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
> And then what? So you know the block matches. But with reasonable FP rates
> every block will match at least a few transactions (this is already the case
This approach needs a filter set with a lower FP rate. It doesn't
depend on having a high FP rate for privacy (which is good, since
counting on filter false positives seems to more or less fail to
deliver actual privacy in any case.)
Larger filters mean a somewhat higher baseline bandwidth, though when
users do not reuse addresses and have more addresses than there are
txouts in the block the gap is narrower.
> Ah, I see, I didn't catch that this scheme relies on UTXO commitments
This is talking about a committed bloom filter. Not a committed UTXO set.
Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1f2…crwet
2023-06-07 15:30:47
in reply to nevent1q…0e3g
Author Public Key
npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetPublished at
2023-06-07 15:30:47Event JSON
{
"id": "ec3e0d803f4298aeae9122358f9065472cefca4966b9d83a93884623ed24c183",
"pubkey": "4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73",
"created_at": 1686151847,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"d00e0f44d6037fd0ba68029864e2acf1e3fe5c4c51dbcdd7d112be31766cd3e9",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"3a5e5df2872e4ed5564026183d9acba99e161647600b7fa6d5b577ddeb795e82",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-02-20\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e And then what? So you know the block matches. But with reasonable FP rates\n\u003e every block will match at least a few transactions (this is already the case\n\nThis approach needs a filter set with a lower FP rate. It doesn't\ndepend on having a high FP rate for privacy (which is good, since\ncounting on filter false positives seems to more or less fail to\ndeliver actual privacy in any case.)\n\nLarger filters mean a somewhat higher baseline bandwidth, though when\nusers do not reuse addresses and have more addresses than there are\ntxouts in the block the gap is narrower.\n\n\u003e Ah, I see, I didn't catch that this scheme relies on UTXO commitments\n\nThis is talking about a committed bloom filter. Not a committed UTXO set.",
"sig": "a26dd29996e639111b46f2e9dc05bf1b470da70d5c26180d95d6810d8683eb938b02dc3cbc9bb8bd93712bbc0d1d6106629621e45f060c16589d69d66f71e7a8"
}