From 36a1741e7fd7d82a01062fa8a440f4f14b02e7e2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matt Corallo Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 11:05:26 -0700 Subject: Update reference and text of 111 after ML discussion --- bip-0111.mediawiki | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/bip-0111.mediawiki b/bip-0111.mediawiki index e75c9be..52bec36 100644 --- a/bip-0111.mediawiki +++ b/bip-0111.mediawiki @@ -42,8 +42,8 @@ the NODE_BLOOM bit set, however clients which require bloom filtered connections should avoid making this assumption. NODE_BLOOM is distinct from NODE_NETWORK, and it is legal to advertise -NODE_BLOOM but not NODE_NETWORK (eg for nodes running in pruned mode -which, nonetheless, provide filtered access to the data which they do have). +NODE_BLOOM but not NODE_NETWORK (though there is little reason to do +so now, some proposals may make this more useful in the future) If a node does not support bloom filters but receives a "filterload", "filteradd", or "filterclear" message from a peer the node should @@ -86,6 +86,7 @@ References ========== [1] http://eprint.iacr.org/2014/763 -[2] ???? is one example where the issues were found, though others +[2] http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-July/003044.html +is one example where the issues were found, though others independently discovered issues as well. Sample DoS exploit code available at https://github.com/petertodd/bloom-io-attack. -- cgit v1.2.3