Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.219.53 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.219.53; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-oa0-f53.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ksllu7$9i$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <CAJHLa0Ou1xF=LeLVu_wH1-XgJ1PavDV7_NHoDevo3R9+4z-ZfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<201307231030.14139.andyparkins@gmail.com>
	<20130723094703.GA25900@savin> <ksllu7$9i$1@ger.gmane.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 12:36:46 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBj8Nt5eQmnyiD6vaFP1970hj5Z5JxEocw3BHEwO_Lbhkg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] HTTP REST API for bitcoind
Precedence: list

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Andreas Schildbach
<andreas@schildbach.de> wrote:
> Yes, I understand that. For this reason, I would vote for adding the
> usual HTTP authentication/SSL stuff to the REST API. That way, SPV users
> can decide to run their own instance of the API (providing the needed
> resources themselves).
>
> Or, a trusted party can set up a server. For example, I would be willing
> to set it up for users of Bitcoin Wallet. I don't expect shitloads of
> paper wallets sweeps for the forseeable future.

I don't object to using a trusted server for this if people want that,
but I don't think the reference client should encourage this.

Apart from that, exposing this HTTP-based interface publicly has its
own problems, like security risks and potential DoS risks. If
anything, we should be reducing the attack surface rather than
increase it. IMHO, the only thing that should be exposed in the P2P
protocol, which is inevitable, and already has some DoS protections.

I like this HTTP interface, but it should really only be used for
trusted local applications and debugging.

-- 
Pieter