summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/c3/bc04999468ca86c1f9cf5b36722ac3e4996d2b
blob: 364ae22a89ba47f899c00b6d3f1b30ae874c8935 (plain)
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
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <jordanmack1981@gmail.com>) id 1Rckzf-00054A-Il
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:43:35 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.213.47 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.213.47; envelope-from=jordanmack1981@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-yw0-f47.google.com; 
Received: from mail-yw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.213.47])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1Rckze-0008Ij-Vz
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:43:35 +0000
Received: by yhoo47 with SMTP id o47so4634522yho.34
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:43:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.236.197.105 with SMTP id s69mr31225108yhn.110.1324331009652;
	Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:43:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.50] (c-67-188-239-72.hsd1.ca.comcast.net.
	[67.188.239.72])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i22sm17080753yhm.10.2011.12.19.13.43.27
	(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:43:28 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Jordan Mack <jordanmack1981@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EEFAFFB.10508@parhelic.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:43:23 -0800
From: Jordan Mack <jordanmack@parhelic.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
	rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <CABr1YTebhitO4g-SarZ7H=aoG9a8zW1wd0rfR32o8i0vODbLJw@mail.gmail.com>
	<82659F61-0449-47BB-88DC-497E0D02F8A1@ceptacle.com>
	<CALxbBHUXEJLRDZ=RS1vuvkm7rDjFUPir0sU__f6TJXiTTQxWzA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4EEE58CA.5090902@justmoon.de>
In-Reply-To: <4EEE58CA.5090902@justmoon.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
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
	(jordanmack1981[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 (jordanmack1981[at]gmail.com)
	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
	-0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1Rckze-0008Ij-Vz
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Protocol extensions
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, 19 Dec 2011 21:43:35 -0000

On 12/18/2011 1:19 PM, Stefan Thomas wrote:
 > Let those who want anonymity connect through Tor, Freenet, etc. It's
 > easy to add anonymity via an extra layer, but it is impossible to add
 > performance on top of a slow system.

That's a very good point. This is needless complication at the protocol 
level. Alternatives, like Tor, could be used to provide the desired 
effect. Developers could even choose to integrate Tor functionality into 
the client itself at some point.