Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1QpKBu-0007l6-BU for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:11:54 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.160.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.160.175; envelope-from=witchspace81@gmail.com; helo=mail-gy0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-gy0-f175.google.com ([209.85.160.175]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1QpKBt-0007hv-MK for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:11:54 +0000 Received: by gyg4 with SMTP id 4so1782253gyg.34 for ; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 06:11:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.8.10 with SMTP id 10mr3060605ybh.60.1312549908233; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 06:11:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.52.5 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 06:11:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201108041038.47396.luke@dashjr.org> <1312545697.19584.56.camel@mei> Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 13:11:48 +0000 Message-ID: From: John Smith To: Christian Decker Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd2537c07bcd704a9c1d721 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (witchspace81[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.1 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (witchspace81[at]gmail.com) 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1QpKBt-0007hv-MK Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Blitcoin? (Black Hat 2011) 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: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 13:11:54 -0000 --000e0cd2537c07bcd704a9c1d721 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Christian Decker < decker.christian@gmail.com> wrote: > While I do think that anonymity (or pseudonymity) is a nice feature, I > don't think it deserves the full focus of the developers. The core of the > protocol is about making transactions in a secure and fast way, not allowing > everybody to be anonymous, whether they want to or not. TOR already is a > good options for those that want to stay anonymous, and there is no need to > pull support into the main client, if only a few will use it. I think very > few of the developers actually claimed that Bitcoin is anonymous, and has > never been a big advertising point from the "official" side of Bitcoin, > network analysis has been always known to break anonymity. > Yes. Optionally layering Bitcoin over Tor/I2P is a much better option than trying to replicate an onion network in Bitcoin itself. For one, traffic analysis is much more difficult if your onion routing network contains multiple kinds of traffic. Also it would complicate the core algorithm and waste developer time. Doing anonymity *right* is very hard. So let's leave it to the Tor/I2P people that know what they're doing. > > I see no need for action from the developer side. > Except the part about making the client/network more resistant against DDoS. JS --000e0cd2537c07bcd704a9c1d721 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Christi= an Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com> wrote:
While I do think that anonymity (or pseudonymity) is a nice feature, I don&= #39;t think it deserves the full focus of the developers. The core of the p= rotocol is about making transactions in a secure and fast way, not allowing= everybody to be anonymous, whether they want to or not. TOR already is a g= ood options for those that want to stay anonymous, and there is no need to = pull support into the main client, if only a few will use it. I think very = few of the developers actually claimed that Bitcoin is anonymous, and has n= ever been a big advertising point from the "official" side of Bit= coin, network analysis has been always known to break anonymity.

Yes. Optionally layering Bitcoin over Tor/I2P is a mu= ch better option than trying to replicate an onion network in Bitcoin itsel= f. For one,=A0 traffic analysis is much more difficult if your onion routin= g network contains multiple kinds of traffic. Also it would complicate the = core algorithm and waste developer time. Doing anonymity *right* is very ha= rd. So let's leave it to the Tor/I2P people that know what they're = doing.
=A0

I see no need for action from the developer side.
=
Except the part about making the client/network more resistant against = DDoS.

JS

--000e0cd2537c07bcd704a9c1d721--