BIP 111 #183

pull TheBlueMatt wants to merge 7 commits into bitcoin:master from TheBlueMatt:master changing 2 files +91 −0

TheBlueMatt commented at 6:06 PM on August 24, 2015: contributor

No description provided.
Add last-fully-posted version of BIP 111 261bf25afc
Update reference and text of 111 after ML discussion 36a1741e7f
laanwj commented at 6:10 PM on August 24, 2015: member

NIt: also needs to be added to the index.
Add BIP 111 to index 8dd40f15ba
TheBlueMatt commented at 6:25 PM on August 24, 2015: contributor

Fixed.
Fix index number on BIP 111 b1d5a37f58
bip-111 convert formatting to mediawiki 94db3f90c3
Merge pull request #1 from techstoreclub/fix/bip-111-number
Fix index number on BIP 111 & Formatting
19a33ff72d
Remove confusing * a110a5692f

in bip-0111.mediawiki:None in 8dd40f15ba outdated

  62 | +
  63 | +A service bit was chosen as applying a bloom filter is a service.
  64 | +
  65 | +The increase in protocol version is for backwards compatibility. In
  66 | +initial implementations, old nodes which are not yet aware of NODE_BLOOM
  67 | +and use a protocol version < 70011 may still send filter* messages to a

andychase commented at 12:29 AM on August 27, 2015:

"filter*" is confusing. Asterisks after words in a document in english usually denote a footnote. Maybe "may still send bloom filter messages"

in bip-0111.mediawiki:None in 8dd40f15ba outdated
```
  21 | +implicitly assuming that all nodes that serve peers data support it.
  22 | +However, the connection filtering algorithm proposed in BIP 37, and
  23 | +implemented in several clients today, has been shown to provide little
  24 | +to no privacy[1], as well as being a large DoS risk on some nodes[2].
  25 | +Thus, allowing node operators to disable connection bloom filtering is a
  26 | +much-needed feature.
```
andychase commented at 12:33 AM on August 27, 2015:

Maybe add something about implementations not wanting to implement it right away like btcd? I thought the motivation for removing this feature had to do more with "not forcing it on implementations" rather than attacks and privacy. To be clear, the privacy implications are for the clients that are using the feature, and not for the sever operator.

TheBlueMatt commented at 9:31 PM on September 1, 2015:

Meh, the reason others didnt implement it is because of the DoS issues, mostly, not because they just didnt feel like it, so thats covered.
laanwj referenced this in commit 77f4c9d9f8 on Sep 1, 2015
laanwj merged this on Sep 1, 2015
laanwj closed this on Sep 1, 2015
luke-jr referenced this in commit 01571c1e58 on Jan 20, 2018
ajtowns referenced this in commit 1d2166edc9 on Jan 10, 2020

Contributors

TheBlueMatt

laanwj

andychase