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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <robert@mckay.com>) id 1W3aUh-0006mg-Nd
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 16 Jan 2014 00:07:35 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of mckay.com
designates 37.1.88.131 as permitted sender)
client-ip=37.1.88.131; envelope-from=robert@mckay.com;
helo=mail.mckay.com;
Received: from mail.mckay.com ([37.1.88.131])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1W3aUZ-0000Oe-Sa
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 16 Jan 2014 00:07:35 +0000
Received: from www-data by mail.mckay.com with local (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <robert@mckay.com>)
id 1W3a1L-0000Qd-RK; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 23:37:15 +0000
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 0:func.inc
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=UTF-8;
format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 23:37:15 +0000
From: Robert McKay <robert@mckay.com>
In-Reply-To: <5747D5DF-879B-4A60-8BD6-18251E7D5F47@plan99.net>
References: <5747D5DF-879B-4A60-8BD6-18251E7D5F47@plan99.net>
Message-ID: <60844494f46e330ec38f9275bc33f30b@webmail.mckay.com>
X-Sender: robert@mckay.com
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.5.3
X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
-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: 1W3aUZ-0000Oe-Sa
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
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 00:07:35 -0000
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 23:51:21 +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
> The goal of all that is that we get to keep our existing IPv4 based
> anti-sybil heuristics, so we can’t possibly make anything worse,
> only better. Plus, we’ve now set things up so in future if/when we
> come up with a better anti-sybil system based on anonymous identities
> or other fancy crypto, we can take out the “connect via clearnet”
> step and go straight to using hidden services with only a very small
> set of code changes and no new protocol work.
I think it might be ok to use proof-of-stake on as an anti-sybil scheme
on tor.. people would obviously not want to associate their wallet with
their IP address, but is there any harm in associating it with a
(temporary) tor service id (especially one that isn't used for anything
other than relaying bitcoin transactions)? If each node you connect too
can sign some challenge with a key that controls some BTC (and your
client node verifies that the funds are different) then that might be
useful.. even if it were only a small 0.01BTC stake that would be
similar to the cost of obtaining another IP through a cheap VPS or VPN
and significantly higher than the cost to an attacker who is able to
MITM everything and operate on any IP anyway.
Rob
|
