1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <cryptocurrencies@quidecco.de>) id 1W3g3S-0005mX-4E
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:03:50 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from quidecco.de ([81.169.136.15])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1W3g3Q-0008BU-T3
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:03:50 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by quidecco.de (Postfix) with SMTP id E5C60DB1D40;
Thu, 16 Jan 2014 04:54:43 +0100 (CET)
From: Isidor Zeuner <cryptocurrencies@quidecco.de>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
References: <CANEZrP1iP6J5gczrQ-+Lzq4uohys7Rrfa0c5F0r-cqx3OJMDGg@mail.gmail.com>
<CANg-TZBCSvVeDTNKQSPV-Fw+uZ8np04WoE=o0J+8wULBHrsgKQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP1iP6J5gczrQ-+Lzq4uohys7Rrfa0c5F0r-cqx3OJMDGg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Message-Id: <20140116035443.E5C60DB1D40@quidecco.de>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 04:54:43 +0100 (CET)
X-Spam-Score: -0.3 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1W3g3Q-0008BU-T3
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Tor / SPV
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:03:50 -0000
quote:
> > but then you remove the implication that a node has to give both public
> > and private IPs to a peer. If it's part of a batch of "addr"s, it could be
> > my own hidden service ID, but it could also be one that I learned from
> > someone else and is now propagating, for anyone to bootstrap with Tor
> > hidden service peers if they'd like.
> >
>
> Hmm. So you mean that we pick a set of peers we believe to not be sybils of
> each other, but they might give us hidden services run by other people? I
> need to think about that. If they're getting the hidden services just from
> addr announcements themselves, then you just punt the issue up a layer -
> what stops me generating 10000 hidden service keys that all map to my same
> malicious node, announcing them, and then waiting for the traffic to
> arrive? If clearnet nodes inform of their own hidden service IDs, that
> issue is avoided.
>
Considering that the clearnet sybil protection also relies on scaling
up the resource requirements for an attacker, why not require hidden
service addresses following a certain pattern, like a fixed prefix?
Essentially also a PoW scheme...
> My goal here is not necessarily to hide P2P nodes - we still need lots of
> clearnet P2P nodes for the forseeable future no matter what.
What would you consider as the main merits of clearnet nodes?
Best regards,
Isidor
|
