To: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <BL2PR03MB435C5077E69D91D0A8092B6EE2A0@BL2PR03MB435.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<CADJgMzvuii8Ww822v3DRa=-Azuqo4va6s32MsNSC-6M9=stm1Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<BL2PR03MB435029A0856DC7077D4AD68EE2D0@BL2PR03MB435.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<D4B674DB-8F2E-4AA1-B271-FEE02A62A274@voskuil.org>
	<30362205-D0CC-46D9-B924-EFA0A6EA1AC9@jonasschnelli.ch>
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
Message-ID: <beed7ade-13be-3a7f-9a4e-99f77378e780@voskuil.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:09:05 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <30362205-D0CC-46D9-B924-EFA0A6EA1AC9@jonasschnelli.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="fosm0Gs92r9hLRME1SKQhin2jpmGUqDBC"
Cc: Libbitcoin Development <libbitcoin@lists.dyne.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers
Precedence: list

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--fosm0Gs92r9hLRME1SKQhin2jpmGUqDBC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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=E2=80=9C).
>=20
> 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=E2=80=99s=
 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=E2=80=99t be identified without having the identity-keys pr=
e 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


--fosm0Gs92r9hLRME1SKQhin2jpmGUqDBC
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYwHLyAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOp7YIAJNk1XiKPNGnXIUFkAFUm3n8
/oQLILCvLLaXWlRy1nNe3jnirBim+/QjYXVaDRyqOLYFWr6htI329a5Obwhq7Y5b
drRNcYFfLbGHgpUdLCqvYneCpxvuJeacTp5FwBeTr+Ooo9GopOaNABL4UB2lZve6
meo04s/PgKqYSm6C30RQRkYxVvPUd/PUrUwGgKx+bLeVsFzOpIi/eMCOaUliJjXw
W8uNnDmJUgwmsArBjXTitcC5H29prV7cyVhPC9vi/cFEXmgSBb4MdWIIW86NwbkI
4SH4LX4Rn00jKVnCLdEdtyNKgNDQy/FL6Bwgqnyusmwm4TdZLooTac99uJdmbgs=
=ICpg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--fosm0Gs92r9hLRME1SKQhin2jpmGUqDBC--