I'll just quote what I said on github: Neither this pull nor the BIP has any stated intention of phasing out bloom filtering support in the protocol. As much as I'd love to, I 100% agree with @mikehearn here, that would break any ability of SPV clients to operate on the P2P network (either as a way to double-check centralized servers, or otherwise), and that is really not a good idea without a replacement in place. This pull/BIP DOES suggest we phase out REQUIRED bloom filtering support in the protocol - thereby fixing the peer selection of SPV clients in the face of btcd with some flags/many patched versions of Core/etc peers, providing a remedy for a potential DoS attack, etc.
Matt On 08/24/15 15:19, Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On 8/21/2015 3:06 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 05:55:58PM +0000, Matt Corallo wrote: >>> Anyone have the best reference for the DoS issues? >> Well actually, we can reference the DoS attacks that Bitcoin XT nodes >> are undergoing right now - part of the attack is repeated Bloom filter >> requests to soak up disk IO bandwidth. > > So, to summarize, someone is attacking Mike Hearn's bitcoin fork. > Therefore, now is the perfect time to write a BIP and author changes > that begin the process of dropping support for the most broadly > successful class of wallets, which Mike Hearn's SPV client library enables. > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
