MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <31FB94D1-5B5B-43EF-AFD8-2A7508464F7C@jonasschnelli.ch>
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>
	<beed7ade-13be-3a7f-9a4e-99f77378e780@voskuil.org>
	<31FB94D1-5B5B-43EF-AFD8-2A7508464F7C@jonasschnelli.ch>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:12:01 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBhKMWVRSka+iZvLn1B94eBgrzakw73pX40XHPMH647C7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Libbitcoin Development <libbitcoin@lists.dyne.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers
Precedence: list

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Am 08.03.2017 um 22:09 schrieb Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>:
>>
>> 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).

I believe this discussion is getting sidetracked.

There is a difference between identification/fingerprinting (who are
you?) and proving identity (prove that you are who I think you are?).

BIP150 only facilitates the second, not the first. I don't think you
disagree about that, but I want to make it clear for anyone else
following the discussion.

The question is whether it encourages people to establish known and
pre-shared identities for nodes. Perhaps, but not in any way that
IP/onion addresses don't already. Think about it:
* If you know an IP/onion address, you can verify whether some node
has it. If you know an IP/onion address + BIP150 PSK, you can verify
whether some node has it.
* If you know 2 IP/onion addresses, you cannot figure out whether they
correspond to the same node (and if you can, that is a bug, not by
design). If you know 2 (IP/onion addresses, BIP150 PSK) pairs, you
cannot figure out whether they correspond to the same node (and if you
can, that is a bug, not by design).
* If you receive a connection from a node, you cannot know what their
onion address is. If you receive a connection from a node, you cannot
figure out what their PSK is.

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).

Cheers,

--=20
Pieter