From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
To: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>,
Libbitcoin Development <libbitcoin@lists•dyne.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 17:55:32 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBg-ihLOi4eq6mCti=bGtbe0sWYv3ScmWoEZ8d=dHDQ5Mw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6a5a6a8f-d689-260a-76a9-a91f6bda56c5@voskuil.org>
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil•org> wrote:
> On 03/08/2017 03:12 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote:
>> In that way, I see BIP150 as an extension of IP addresses, except more
>> secure against network-level attackers. If you believe the concept of
>> people establishing links along existing trust lines is a problem, you
>> should be arguing against features in Bitcoin software that allows
>> configuring preferred IP addresses to connect to as well (-addnode and
>> -connect in Bitcoin Core, for example).
>
> Weak identity is insufficient to produce the problem scenario that is at
> the heart of my concern (excluding people). It is this "[same] except
> more secure" distinction that is the problem. You brush past that as if
> it did not exist.
So you're saying that a -onlyacceptconnectionsfrom=IP option wouldn't
be a concern to you because it can't exclude people? Of course it can
exclude people - just not your ISP or a state-level attacker.
Please, Eric. I think I understand your concern, but this argument
isn't constructive either.
The proposal here is to introduce visible node identities on the
network. I think that's misguided as node count is irrelevant and
trivial to fake anyway. But you bringing up BIP150 here isn't useful
either. I know that you equate the concept of having verifiable
identity keys in the P2P with a step towards making every node
identifiable, but they are not the same. It's just a cryptographic
tool to keep a certain class of attackers from bypassing restrictions
that people can already make.
--
Pieter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-09 1:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-04 16:04 John Hardy
2017-03-05 6:29 ` Marcel Jamin
2017-03-05 12:55 ` John Hardy
2017-03-05 13:27 ` Btc Drak
2017-03-05 13:57 ` John Hardy
2017-03-07 18:44 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-03-08 2:01 ` bfd
2017-03-08 19:47 ` Jonas Schnelli
2017-03-08 21:09 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-03-08 21:20 ` Jonas Schnelli
2017-03-08 23:12 ` Pieter Wuille
[not found] ` <6a5a6a8f-d689-260a-76a9-a91f6bda56c5@voskuil.org>
2017-03-09 1:55 ` Pieter Wuille [this message]
2017-03-09 11:01 ` Aymeric Vitte
2017-03-09 1:08 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-03-08 21:25 ` [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers (and BIP150) Tom Zander
2017-03-08 21:31 ` Jonas Schnelli
[not found] <7c5020dd-5259-9954-7bf1-06fa98124f8f@voskuil.org>
2017-03-22 0:04 ` [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers Eric Voskuil
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAPg+sBg-ihLOi4eq6mCti=bGtbe0sWYv3ScmWoEZ8d=dHDQ5Mw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=pieter.wuille@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=eric@voskuil$(echo .)org \
--cc=libbitcoin@lists$(echo .)dyne.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox