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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <misterbg6@gmail.com>) id 1Xu9gl-0002w5-D9
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 28 Nov 2014 00:45:35 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.65 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.65; envelope-from=misterbg6@gmail.com;
helo=mail-la0-f65.google.com;
Received: from mail-la0-f65.google.com ([209.85.215.65])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Xu9gk-0002Lz-Iw
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 28 Nov 2014 00:45:35 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f65.google.com with SMTP id hs14so33304lab.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 27 Nov 2014 16:45:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.189.10 with SMTP id ge10mr40749845lbc.23.1417135528230;
Thu, 27 Nov 2014 16:45:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.25.30.13 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 16:45:28 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 01:45:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CABssiCpUE=3GhC+Scd3htzVb9+gmLeZ0mEO5LY-zxywvguZ--w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mistr Bigs <misterbg6@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c37016c244f50508e0933d
X-Spam-Score: -0.3 (/)
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
(misterbg6[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in
digit (misterbg6[at]gmail.com)
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: 1Xu9gk-0002Lz-Iw
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Deanonymisation of clients in Bitcoin P2P
network paper
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: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 00:45:35 -0000
--001a11c37016c244f50508e0933d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
That's what I was trying to say... The researchers are deanonymizing
transactions from non-Tor connected hosts. So why are we talking about Tor
limitations in response to this? Shouldn't we be discussing how to address
the issues in Bitcoin proper?
M
On 11/27/2014 9:30 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 5:44 PM, <misterbg6@gmail.com> wrote:
I might be mistaken, but it seems to me this paper discusses unintended ways
of obtaining the IP addresses of clients involved in transactions on the
core Bitcoin network.
You're mistaken. :)
If a node is used exclusively via tor it effectively doesn't have a IP address.
(short of bugs of a class that aren't discussed here)
The paper is about fingerprinting approaches that probabilistically
connect transactions to hosts that you can already identify their IPs.
--001a11c37016c244f50508e0933d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>That's what I was trying to say... The researcher=
s are deanonymizing transactions from non-Tor connected hosts. So why are w=
e talking about Tor limitations in response to this? Shouldn't we be di=
scussing how to address the issues in Bitcoin proper?<br><br></div>M<br><br=
><div><div>
<div class=3D"">On 11/27/2014 9:30 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite=3D"mid:CAAS2fgR65CW41V2z0b6mxGYyVavuYQfMGEV7B00ogWrwOXA+_A=
@mail.gmail.com" type=3D"cite">
<pre>On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 5:44 PM, <<a href=3D"mailto:misterbg6@gma=
il.com">misterbg6@gmail.com</a>> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type=3D"cite"><pre>I might be mistaken, but it seems to me th=
is paper discusses unintended ways
of obtaining the IP addresses of clients involved in transactions on the
core Bitcoin network.
</pre></blockquote>
<pre>You're mistaken. :)
If a node is used exclusively via tor it effectively doesn't have a IP =
address.
(short of bugs of a class that aren't discussed here)
The paper is about fingerprinting approaches that probabilistically
connect transactions to hosts that you can already identify their IPs.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
--001a11c37016c244f50508e0933d--
|
