Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
In-Reply-To: <20160630190613.GA6758@fedora-21-dvm>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 22:26:48 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <85F9E196-7D56-40DE-83A2-15255A56B115@voskuil.org>
References: <577234A4.3030808@jonasschnelli.ch>
	<360EF9B8-A174-41CA-AFDD-2BC2C0B4DECB@voskuil.org>
	<20160629111728.GO13338@dosf1.alfie.wtf>
	<2981A919-4550-4807-8ED9-F8C51B2DC061@voskuil.org>
	<57750EAB.3020105@jonasschnelli.ch>
	<426C2AA3-BFB8-4C41-B4DF-4D6CC11988B2@voskuil.org>
	<577513DB.60101@jonasschnelli.ch>
	<F4BDD091-FD80-4EE9-93EF-735B6BBE253C@voskuil.org>
	<20160630165227.GA5816@fedora-21-dvm>
	<663B51FE-D8D5-4570-ACA6-D1405D98C773@voskuil.org>
	<20160630190613.GA6758@fedora-21-dvm>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 151
Precedence: list


> On Jun 30, 2016, at 9:06 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
>=20
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 08:25:45PM +0200, Eric Voskuil wrote:
>>> To be clear, are you against Bitcoin Core's tor support?
>>>=20
>>> Because node-to-node connections over tor are encrypted, and make use of=
 onion
>>> addresses, which are self-authenticated in the exact same way as BIP151 p=
roposes.
>>=20
>> BIP151 is self-admittedly insufficient to protect against a MITM attack. I=
t proposes node identity to close this hole (future BIP required). The yet-t=
o-be-specified requirement for node identity is the basis of my primary conc=
ern. This is not self-authentication.
>>=20
>>> And we're shipping that in production as of 0.12.0, and by default Tor o=
nion support is enabled and will be automatically setup if you have a recent=
 version of Tor installed.
>>>=20
>>> Does that "create pressure to expand node identity"?
>>=20
>> The orthogonal question of whether Tor is safe for use with the Bitcoin P=
2P protocol is a matter of existing research.
>=20
> I don't think you answered my question.
>=20
> Again, we _already have_ the equivalent of BIP151 functionality in Bitcoin=

> Core, shipping in production, but implemented with a Tor dependency.
>=20
> BIP151 removes that dependency on Tor, enabling encrypted connections
> regardless of whether or not you have Tor installed.
>=20
> So any arguments against BIP151 being implemented, are equally arguments
> against our existing Tor onion support. Are you against that support? Beca=
use
> if you aren't, you can't have any objections to BIP151 being implemented

Neither Tor nor Bitcoin Core are part of this BIP (or its proposed dependenc=
y on node identity).

But again, given that node identity is not part of the Bitcoin Core Tor inte=
gration, my objection to the presumption of node identity by BIP151 is unrel=
ated to Bitcoin Core's Tor integration.

e=