Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:47:34 +0000
From: Alfie John <alfie@alfie.wtf>
To: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20160630144734.GR13338@dosf1.alfie.wtf>
References: <87h9cecad5.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<1E86A00F-0609-4DBC-9543-94AE04CC13C9@voskuil.org>
	<577234A4.3030808@jonasschnelli.ch>
	<CAAS2fgQFqHBdbym4GMAV-mdcEWR1SdGc3av0mDu65keKP9Ak6g@mail.gmail.com>
	<AB9C1C8F-7369-42CC-8551-7E03B16D5229@voskuil.org>
	<CAAS2fgT4V72vj17qTLu7pz5EQ60bqnggeDnTP5ASdwYxpuNpWw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CB6D8DF2-3EB7-4A12-8861-494D1DBC3D93@voskuil.org>
	<CAJowKg+tOoEEeVh2sh3oZbnJ3dO_h4n9eBaUeZ+ys2RPD+s2vQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJowKg+tOoEEeVh2sh3oZbnJ3dO_h4n9eBaUeZ+ys2RPD+s2vQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 151
Precedence: list

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 09:36:57AM -0400, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Encrypting links in a network without identity doesn't really seem to help
> enough for the costs to be justified.

Passive is still better than none.

> I would like to see a PGP-like "web of trust" proposal for both the
> security of the bitcoin network itself /and/ (eventually) of things like
> transmission of bitcoin addresses.

There already exists an unutilised WoT of "good" actors within the network -
miners via the coinbase transaction. Bootstrapping their own "trusted" pool of
IP addresses would be possible via the 100 bytes coinbase script.

> *Then* you can slap an encryption layer on top of it.   Once you have
> identity & P2P verified pub keys for nodes, encryption becomes easy.

A miner's WoT will give you this.

Alfie

-- 
Alfie John
https://www.alfie.wtf