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
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
|
Return-Path: <eric@voskuil.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11296B75
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 9 Mar 2017 01:08:06 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pg0-f41.google.com (mail-pg0-f41.google.com [74.125.83.41])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 611D1258
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 9 Mar 2017 01:08:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id 25so19594856pgy.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 08 Mar 2017 17:08:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent
:mime-version:in-reply-to;
bh=S5XrC9PwTZpc6g2BMhwsk5RvbWTonBbTYyqiUe3MAfo=;
b=yXguK7FKq92jt/YsupFfTtbNX0OnHmF3lXYKRXvhqLJrTo1WWZ4WEVU33aoa2HhCp1
ZRxjjoLy1WJx0M2dXYGXkzSFzveDpoH5jEOOVKvAyVEvuVmKOmbi4+hdmX7bsDIQUbyS
+aFcC+VdiMfJ8Q65evJwV1QXpqPf1SSgfMWAkzBgGSH0LQZAmHhp8EenA+rP+DmlXdk4
XkKE9EKYlnBwlvlX5VwqayzsM4h7jdC7rS+ekkF9fvU0fbQQn12lMKfnd2Xx9KffLzDA
O9HdTGwtk0laXn43geL91yddrNkGiT6JOuFVv+GWCWk4L5InNzxpGLakuU3sl38lXeYf
5f3Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to;
bh=S5XrC9PwTZpc6g2BMhwsk5RvbWTonBbTYyqiUe3MAfo=;
b=ANe2+KFlo3o4W7FQXSKgiRj2b0YEp4WQdaE4uAEw4zAukAqpKvVhsCjWFqHh6RNB7b
97hRwY5XRXc68/fVTqd87Bzncbtj8mmOyfO2Rmjur3tHDjdAqjS1p8z6Lpy5iZ/52dJ7
0nKFoP9hbFioynKSFWX3HuqnErMrUoiBmRa+r/GnQpZnNdVjM8h53hy8JUnidn/JWFKr
INuhXW5gf0N+KV4PWMhMQ34jd2rAoEku7vttVn3E3RC8JBZeVG25RuIOVtynRnk9E58B
qzlKmwaNK1Pw0j2uKnOGCb7SK7kP6yRudFfxld4vL6ILQgiS4vQwu9fVOfI/lVG8cxxG
3sbg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39ld0HDXgVuRR5DdSVwK5WBlP4ed3HsaE3a+B+j5Xnkuxvm5+1RZ8Bjqq8KfW6K5nQ==
X-Received: by 10.99.143.18 with SMTP id n18mr10515852pgd.177.1489021684814;
Wed, 08 Mar 2017 17:08:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:9000:d69e:ed9e:f718:c16a:40c9?
([2601:600:9000:d69e:ed9e:f718:c16a:40c9])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
m136sm8413255pga.22.2017.03.08.17.08.03
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Wed, 08 Mar 2017 17:08:03 -0800 (PST)
To: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>
References: <BL2PR03MB435C5077E69D91D0A8092B6EE2A0@BL2PR03MB435.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
<CADJgMzvuii8Ww822v3DRa=-Azuqo4va6s32MsNSC-6M9=stm1Q@mail.gmail.com>
<BL2PR03MB435029A0856DC7077D4AD68EE2D0@BL2PR03MB435.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
<D4B674DB-8F2E-4AA1-B271-FEE02A62A274@voskuil.org>
<30362205-D0CC-46D9-B924-EFA0A6EA1AC9@jonasschnelli.ch>
<beed7ade-13be-3a7f-9a4e-99f77378e780@voskuil.org>
<31FB94D1-5B5B-43EF-AFD8-2A7508464F7C@jonasschnelli.ch>
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <056457a2-7cae-e54d-1eab-681dcf4be002@voskuil.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 17:08:04 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <31FB94D1-5B5B-43EF-AFD8-2A7508464F7C@jonasschnelli.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="JNjn99LDsLV34twhFRS4C2xmN80jUACrT"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 01:13:40 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
Libbitcoin Development <libbitcoin@lists.dyne.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 01:08:06 -0000
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--JNjn99LDsLV34twhFRS4C2xmN80jUACrT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 03/08/2017 01:20 PM, Jonas Schnelli wrote:
>
>> Am 08.03.2017 um 22:09 schrieb Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>:
>>
>> On 03/08/2017 11:47 AM, Jonas Schnelli wrote:
>>>>> Nodes are by design not supposed to be identifiable in any way
>>>>
>>>> This is of course my objection to BIP150 ("a way for peers to ...
>>>> guarantee node ownership=E2=80=9C).
>>>
>>> Please Eric. Stop spreading FUD.
>>
>> I'm always willing to debate this issue. I'm generally a little
>> suspicious of one who demands another person to stop arguing. I got at=
>> least one such demand (along with a threat) on this subject privately
>> last summer from a notable Core dev. There is a lengthy thread on this=
>> subject in which I raised these issues. Everyone is free to review tha=
t
>> discussion.
> What you did say in the sentence above (and I think is FUD) is, that
BIP150 will lead to every node being identifiable.
My argument against BIP150 (and 151) is based on the very real concern
that it provides a built-in mechanism to partition the network (while
also providing no meaningful privacy benefit).
> This is just completely wrong.
The only actual argument that I have seen from *anyone* to date is that
this is *unlikely* to happen. That was specifically Pieter's position
last summer. That argument is not technical but instead based on blind
trust in people.
The common refrain, which Pieter has penned again in a follow-up to this
post, is that we already have identity in terms of IP addresses, so
what's the harm. I find this argument ironic given that one of the
arguments in favor of this proposal is that IP address identification is
insufficient to establish identity. I assume that you both understand
there is a very meaningful distinction between strong identity and weak
identity.
The other argument that is often given is that, because we are talking
about privately shared as opposed to published identifiers, there is no
reason for concern. This entirely misses the point. The ability to
establish strong identity makes it trivial for someone to (strongly)
require the identity of anyone with who he/she allows a connection. This
is the *stated purpose* of BIP150. This turns the Bitcoin security model
on its head. Instead of validating content this validates people.
Given the current level of economic and hash power centralization it is
not at all hard to imagine that through fear/consequences of regulatory
controls or even poor scalability, that these points of centralization
will eventually start by establishing private connections, and
eventually require anyone connecting to them to "preshare" an identifier
(which of course identifies the person). At that point Bitcoin P2P will
have become a private network. I know you have the right motivation, but
I do not understand why you would ignore this risk in exchange for a
false sense of privacy.
There is a very clear path to this happening. So please explain to me
how this concern is "wrong". This is *not* a technical question, I know
perfectly well how the scheme works.
> There is nothing to say against a technical debate (and we had this),
but I will ask you to stop if I see you attacking BIP150/151 at every
occasion with FUDish arguments like this.
Take a step back and consider that there may in fact be serious
consequences to what you are proposing. Calling may arguments
"attacking" and "FUD" is unproductive.
e
--JNjn99LDsLV34twhFRS4C2xmN80jUACrT
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYwKr1AAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOeQoIAJC29LvgQmm4rPPQcvACd6Nj
BehzJIvoa6svKJGB+nZltmgHVYuHFvqiVlpCvMZHqndE7nuqLjnWQPPRHUgClAr1
0AoU7Lc87rIG8XAJvSgKhsnkVTDcJRFsfh+p1DF8VSe5rO49Wf4a/FM42O4jcMDY
nRbXeHIKtjU/V7egWmsNM5jYq0Po0IXAo/QxfN72qV5tqVinxwbRnlI3a+BaBZZO
OMbQ4IPsVtJ5BS+hqA01OzOPSjG4R2ryZ6c+OMcnLoOBlp+6YL6b9IstA/mLxX9e
iltjUuLcrCr+l2Vop7bh6DE1kkddZ/AWZuLWnOdoX0K06/hCWONwHPu2Nglrn6g=
=sxOL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--JNjn99LDsLV34twhFRS4C2xmN80jUACrT--
|
