summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/1f/08335e3c8301fc44e3cbe84bf5099d23570e29
blob: f40f30ddf022c8208a33976f0ea53a3b40f1a470 (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
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
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 <will.yager@gmail.com>) id 1XJuFE-0006rr-JW
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:59:20 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.216.169 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.216.169; envelope-from=will.yager@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-qc0-f169.google.com; 
Received: from mail-qc0-f169.google.com ([209.85.216.169])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1XJuFD-0007UB-RJ
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:59:20 +0000
Received: by mail-qc0-f169.google.com with SMTP id c9so7095517qcz.0
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Tue, 19 Aug 2014 17:59:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.229.184.9 with SMTP id ci9mr72885315qcb.11.1408496354360;
	Tue, 19 Aug 2014 17:59:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.51.37 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Aug 2014 17:59:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <b7934ce1-a22f-42d2-92ed-bc5a1c3a27be@email.android.com>
References: <CA+8=xuJ+YDTNjyDW7DvP8KPN_nrFWpE68HvLw6EokFa-B-QGKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+8=xuKRyO1=bu7cgNGHvtAeqgKBxjTH2uUkb61GdCuEQWEu5A@mail.gmail.com>
	<0C0EF7F9-DBBA-4872-897D-63CFA3853726@ricmoo.com>
	<CA+8=xu+KWSF6XYgH-_t87na6M6UOD0CM1su8sizxn5a4b0_Xrw@mail.gmail.com>
	<33D4B2E3-DBF0-444E-B76A-765C4C17E964@ricmoo.com>
	<53F37635.5070807@riseup.net>
	<CAAS2fgTF6424+FfzaL=+iaio2zu_uM_74yKohi7T3dtz=J9CjA@mail.gmail.com>
	<53F38AC9.4000608@corganlabs.com> <53F3DFF7.9070709@jrn.me.uk>
	<CAJHLa0ORxgQrkc4oiqSa3NdNHLU-0pmZDLjXUSpBKWBsBWTgcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<3476b0a1-e08a-46bf-9ee4-ef56fcb02d72@email.android.com>
	<CAJHLa0PnvpAaTgaUej=1G7CJ9=BYSjEWvXybfEaG9pFJxsM8fQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<b7934ce1-a22f-42d2-92ed-bc5a1c3a27be@email.android.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:59:14 -0500
Message-ID: <CAG8oi1PSnuP2UHqNRbcwmU8TPEh__Nw-npa=itQrUsnNeMVkBw@mail.gmail.com>
From: William Yager <will.yager@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11331fb6de9fd80501051c45
X-Spam-Score: 0.6 (/)
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
	(will.yager[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	1.2 MISSING_HEADERS        Missing To: header
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	-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: 1XJuFD-0007UB-RJ
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Encrypt bitcoin messages
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: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 00:59:20 -0000

--001a11331fb6de9fd80501051c45
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

What, exactly, do we hope to achieve from having end-to-end encryption?

Even if it worked perfectly, it wouldn't be very useful.

But it won't work perfectly, because we don't have any method of
authentication. The bitcoin network is trivially MITMable. It's designed to
work even in the face of that, but any encryption we implement will just
get blown away by anyone who cares enough to stand in the middle of two
nodes.

As far as I can see, we get a microscopic obfuscatory advantage over a very
weak passive attacker, at the cost of hugely increased software complexity
(and possibly increased CPU time).

So again; what do we hope to achieve? Why bother? Not a lot of sensitive
information is transmitted in the clear. The little information that might
be considered sensitive is better protected by anonymization (a la Tor),
not encryption.

--001a11331fb6de9fd80501051c45
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">What, exactly, do we hope to achieve from having end-to-en=
d encryption?=C2=A0<div><br></div><div>Even if it worked perfectly, it woul=
dn&#39;t be very useful.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>But it won&#39;t wo=
rk perfectly, because we don&#39;t have any method of authentication. The b=
itcoin network is trivially MITMable. It&#39;s designed to work even in the=
 face of that, but any encryption we implement will just get blown away by =
anyone who cares enough to stand in the middle of two nodes.</div>
<div><br></div><div>As far as I can see, we get a microscopic obfuscatory a=
dvantage over a very weak passive attacker, at the cost of hugely increased=
 software complexity (and possibly increased CPU time).</div><div><br></div=
>
<div>So again; what do we hope to achieve? Why bother? Not a lot of sensiti=
ve information is transmitted in the clear. The little information that mig=
ht be considered sensitive is better protected by anonymization (a la Tor),=
 not encryption.</div>
</div>

--001a11331fb6de9fd80501051c45--