To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <c949a1a2-ca6c-1fa8-6712-0846c5519f66@jonasschnelli.ch>
	<1850609.e9N5m2HcLf@strawberry>
From: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>
Message-ID: <302c0b13-1951-faec-7266-f42bf748163d@jonasschnelli.ch>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 22:01:51 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0)
	Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1850609.e9N5m2HcLf@strawberry>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="mClRfs9j73EJUWs9wxXoujcTacX9lWvKn"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP150/151 concerns and some comments
Precedence: list

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--mClRfs9j73EJUWs9wxXoujcTacX9lWvKn
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="lq1gxLcAigooCXpBraNK0Is7aD5PoojHK";
 protected-headers="v1"
From: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Message-ID: <302c0b13-1951-faec-7266-f42bf748163d@jonasschnelli.ch>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP150/151 concerns and some comments
References: <c949a1a2-ca6c-1fa8-6712-0846c5519f66@jonasschnelli.ch>
 <1850609.e9N5m2HcLf@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <1850609.e9N5m2HcLf@strawberry>

--lq1gxLcAigooCXpBraNK0Is7aD5PoojHK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


>> - If you use one of the todays available SPV clients, you will reveal
>> your complete wallet content (=E2=80=9E~all your addresses") to every =
network
>> observer between you and the node you have connected to. This means, i=
f
>> you pay for a coffee (while being on the owners WIFI), the coffee owne=
r
>> and all the involved ISPs can correlate your wallet with your other
>> internet behavior. Same is true for your cellphone provider if you use=

>> cellular.
> What about allowing trusted users connecting on a different connection.=
 Much=20
> like the RPC one.
> Make that one encrypted. Different usecase, different connection.
>
- What protocol would you use? The same p2p protocol but different port
and/or different process? Why?
- If not the p2p protocol, how would you form a standard? Would it be
worth doing a standard?
- Could you fall back to the current SPV model against random untrusted
peers if you additional channel is not available?
- What are the downsides using current p2p network?
- Would this also solve the security problem of creating designated
channels between peers (the "addnode" thing is based on IPs)?

</jonas>


--lq1gxLcAigooCXpBraNK0Is7aD5PoojHK--

--mClRfs9j73EJUWs9wxXoujcTacX9lWvKn
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=BGY7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--mClRfs9j73EJUWs9wxXoujcTacX9lWvKn--