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
|
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 BC307C38
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 8 Mar 2017 21:09:06 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pf0-f177.google.com (mail-pf0-f177.google.com
[209.85.192.177])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43C082D2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 8 Mar 2017 21:09:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pf0-f177.google.com with SMTP id v190so19458155pfb.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 08 Mar 2017 13:09:06 -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=A+h5SSmw30VZTZHgVw5FL0C5mSMynw9pVLaRcsQgtmQ=;
b=UNcgOjOpb88W75hSItoP2q3BEstfsjAHKgHKOVCU5xgawUkNA7zW6FLMhHKoEKVYya
a7Iu3u0ypFYNlVRv88jJ7Wlrb+5zxgRGr3rUmIRhsXrqf2feWr3s7+5L484FQKKYt8qO
EBvdP8SaB7qlBVRT+6FFgdg/C90x1Tth6OGbMO4JfHyR0gdqIm1nRk1l4KFwUpF0hnCs
Os4D67kPiizrJ8piTL+6RoH7VpIR0MaWDDZ4z4vITT/kIuy4Fp5MXQAENYHVeJE3r4Zq
y9vkJ1+6J4W/39D6bKw3VAKRyjfWcJeomxujKSVGik83oMzx9zwwloanueDChuG1AO5J
MOWA==
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=A+h5SSmw30VZTZHgVw5FL0C5mSMynw9pVLaRcsQgtmQ=;
b=CPkuP6WhQrLBzrigJh6F4crLrdN5LRKd6ZyW7BBcYMsejw0w3Tt+P6KF/SZxk+riFa
50UNU98Uak/l4g3fBpqTccRFisZAfIXN30ueZFmwYPjrkKhCFt0OP0/uZIulEAkAC/go
y6MOZtAXKFepWxPU0e4+mLBofIVtZShhf00lwEf3rszq5M6AFBkG/NN1e78LH68tE1Ew
Zgq/5r3q9TFqFgdr4xoyK1xRIKUY+MHrPiMtigM0jlUwPUKsQS8m+OVI3o94aJeeX/77
Qd6ARYSRQrnMusTGM1HpcWY/3YFlhyMK1iW1Gpd03uNVckwEgtOU420aHHkQk59w7ld7
Cm2g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39laeXrc0qdGvIPehfIpblRtvtLyBoFBbGtwoJm8jISrtmwd1BHnAgCtXEWvQgJRnQ==
X-Received: by 10.98.211.143 with SMTP id z15mr9869003pfk.46.1489007345736;
Wed, 08 Mar 2017 13:09:05 -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
s21sm7890091pfs.87.2017.03.08.13.09.04
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Wed, 08 Mar 2017 13:09:05 -0800 (PST)
To: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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>
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N0110
Message-ID: <beed7ade-13be-3a7f-9a4e-99f77378e780@voskuil.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:09:05 -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: <30362205-D0CC-46D9-B924-EFA0A6EA1AC9@jonasschnelli.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="fosm0Gs92r9hLRME1SKQhin2jpmGUqDBC"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 21:45:34 +0000
Cc: 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: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 21:09:06 -0000
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--fosm0Gs92r9hLRME1SKQhin2jpmGUqDBC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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).
>=20
> 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 that
discussion.
> BIP150 has a fingerprint-free **OPTIONAL** authentication. It=E2=80=99s=
designed
> to not reveal any node identifier/identity without first get a
> crypto.-proof from other peer that he already knows your identity.
> **Peers can=E2=80=99t be identified without having the identity-keys pr=
e shared
> by the node operators.**
The "presharing" of keys is how provable identity works, and is
precisely what this new proposal is also promoting. And in response to
that, the above statement was made by a Core dev (and not disputed):
>>> Nodes are by design not supposed to be identifiable in any way...
I'm calling out the obvious relationship between BIP150 and this new
proposal. Restating how identity works, or that its use is optional does
not refute my position. It's not FUD.
e
--fosm0Gs92r9hLRME1SKQhin2jpmGUqDBC
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)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYwHLyAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOp7YIAJNk1XiKPNGnXIUFkAFUm3n8
/oQLILCvLLaXWlRy1nNe3jnirBim+/QjYXVaDRyqOLYFWr6htI329a5Obwhq7Y5b
drRNcYFfLbGHgpUdLCqvYneCpxvuJeacTp5FwBeTr+Ooo9GopOaNABL4UB2lZve6
meo04s/PgKqYSm6C30RQRkYxVvPUd/PUrUwGgKx+bLeVsFzOpIi/eMCOaUliJjXw
W8uNnDmJUgwmsArBjXTitcC5H29prV7cyVhPC9vi/cFEXmgSBb4MdWIIW86NwbkI
4SH4LX4Rn00jKVnCLdEdtyNKgNDQy/FL6Bwgqnyusmwm4TdZLooTac99uJdmbgs=
=ICpg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--fosm0Gs92r9hLRME1SKQhin2jpmGUqDBC--
|
