From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil•org>
To: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli•ch>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Libbitcoin Development <libbitcoin@lists•dyne.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:09:05 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <beed7ade-13be-3a7f-9a4e-99f77378e780@voskuil.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <30362205-D0CC-46D9-B924-EFA0A6EA1AC9@jonasschnelli.ch>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1426 bytes --]
On 03/08/2017 11:47 AM, Jonas Schnelli wrote:
>>> Nodes are by design not supposed to be identifiable in any way
>>
>> This is of course my objection to BIP150 ("a way for peers to ...
>> guarantee node ownership“).
>
> Please Eric. Stop spreading FUD.
I'm always willing to debate this issue. I'm generally a little
suspicious of one who demands another person to stop arguing. I got at
least one such demand (along with a threat) on this subject privately
last summer from a notable Core dev. There is a lengthy thread on this
subject in which I raised these issues. Everyone is free to review that
discussion.
> BIP150 has a fingerprint-free **OPTIONAL** authentication. It’s designed
> to not reveal any node identifier/identity without first get a
> crypto.-proof from other peer that he already knows your identity.
> **Peers can’t be identified without having the identity-keys pre shared
> by the node operators.**
The "presharing" of keys is how provable identity works, and is
precisely what this new proposal is also promoting. And in response to
that, the above statement was made by a Core dev (and not disputed):
>>> Nodes are by design not supposed to be identifiable in any way...
I'm calling out the obvious relationship between BIP150 and this new
proposal. Restating how identity works, or that its use is optional does
not refute my position. It's not FUD.
e
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-08 21:09 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 [this message]
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
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=beed7ade-13be-3a7f-9a4e-99f77378e780@voskuil.org \
--to=eric@voskuil$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=dev@jonasschnelli$(echo .)ch \
--cc=libbitcoin@lists$(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