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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1UZPQh-0001er-3L
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 06 May 2013 17:42:27 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.51 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.51; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-la0-f51.google.com;
Received: from mail-la0-f51.google.com ([209.85.215.51])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1UZPQg-0001ux-44
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 06 May 2013 17:42:27 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f51.google.com with SMTP id ep20so3481255lab.24
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 06 May 2013 10:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.157.129 with SMTP id wm1mr2236941lbb.69.1367862139347;
Mon, 06 May 2013 10:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.35.43 with HTTP; Mon, 6 May 2013 10:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130506171943.GA22505@petertodd.org>
References: <CANEZrP1YFCLmasOrdxdKDP1=x8nKuy06kGRqZwpnmnhe3-AroA@mail.gmail.com>
<20130506161216.GA5193@petertodd.org>
<CA+8xBpfdY7GsQiyrHuOG-MqXon0RGShpg2Yv-KeAXQ-503kAsA@mail.gmail.com>
<20130506163732.GB5193@petertodd.org>
<CANEZrP2WqXZVRJp6ag=RC4mSkt+a6qTYYpvE=DW_0Rdr=_BBHA@mail.gmail.com>
<20130506171943.GA22505@petertodd.org>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 10:42:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQDa463Xb=D64LDenGn=mX+OXvD_bG=jXGYLnhFbgknsw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-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: 1UZPQg-0001ux-44
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Discovery/addr packets (was: Service bits
for pruned nodes)
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: Mon, 06 May 2013 17:42:27 -0000
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
>> running hash of all messages sent on a connection so far. Add a new
>> protocol message that asks the node to sign the current accumulated
>> hash.
> We already depend on OpenSSL, why not just use standard SSL?
SSL doesn't actually provide non-repudiation. We actually want
non-repudiation. I want to be able to prove to others that some node
deceived me.
(there are a number of other arguments I could make against SSL, but
that one is probably sufficient=E2=80=94 or rather, it's an argument that w=
e
should have some way of cheaply getting non-reputable signatures
regardless of the transport)
>> Last time I looked, Tor wasn't really usable in library form and
>> connecting to hidden services is really slow. So it'd be an issue to
>> just re-use it out of the box, I think.
> For phone stuff you should work with The Guardian Project - they've
> implemented Tor on Android among other things and want to find easier
> ways for apps to use it.
Also look into torchat, which bundles a special tor build and runs a
hidden service.
Because of services like Blockchain.info attacking the casual privacy
users not using their webwallet service I've been thinking that even
for clients that don't normally use tor their own transaction
announcements should probably be made by bringing up a connection over
tor and announcing. But thats another matter...
I've switched to running on tor exclusively for my personal node (yay
dogfooding) and I've found it to connect and sync up very fast most of
the time. The biggest slowdown appears to be the our timeout on the
tor connections is very high and so if it gets unlucky on the first
couple attempts it can be minutes before it gets a connection. We're
short on onion peers and I sometimes get inbound connections before I
manage to get an outbound.
|
