Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1W3ekx-0001sV-T9 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 04:40:40 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of niftybox.net designates 95.142.167.147 as permitted sender) client-ip=95.142.167.147; envelope-from=c1.sf-bitcoin@niftybox.net; helo=i3.hyper.to; Received: from i3.hyper.to ([95.142.167.147]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1W3ekw-0006H1-Qy for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 04:40:39 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by i3.hyper.to (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCB0BE0129 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 05:40:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from i3.hyper.to ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (i3.hyper.to [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NJ5Hd+f49aoS for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 05:40:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.1.10.188] (50-1-105-185.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.105.185]) by i3.hyper.to (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 89D61E0100 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 05:40:31 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <1389847226.19590.29.camel@mimiz> From: Miron To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 20:40:26 -0800 In-Reply-To: <1389846587.19590.22.camel@mimiz> References: <5747D5DF-879B-4A60-8BD6-18251E7D5F47@plan99.net> <1389846587.19590.22.camel@mimiz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.4-0ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record X-Headers-End: 1W3ekw-0006H1-Qy Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Tor / SPV X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 04:40:40 -0000 On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 20:29 -0800, Miron wrote: > On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 23:51 +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: > ... > > 3) SPV wallets that want to get a good mix of nodes for measuring > > pending transactions identify nodes on the clearnet via their addr > > announcements+service flag, in the normal way. They select some of > > these nodes using the standard clearnet anti-sybil heuristics and > > connect without using Tor. They proceed to query them for their hidden > > The SPV node could connect to the IP using Tor. It would preserve the > privacy of the SPV node - hard to see it's running Bitcoin. It also > reduces the ability of an attacker to MITM because the routing varies > with each exit node. > It would also be good to gossip the mapping of (IP -> onion address). This would allow detection of a future MITM, since the MITM can't spoof the onion fingerprint.