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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1WiLdT-0005Vp-OD
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 08 May 2014 10:33:07 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.179 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.179; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f179.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f179.google.com ([209.85.213.179])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WiLdR-0000GH-W6
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 08 May 2014 10:33:07 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f179.google.com with SMTP id hn18so2325706igb.0
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 08 May 2014 03:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.111.138 with SMTP id ii10mr6943745igb.34.1399545179998;
Thu, 08 May 2014 03:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.22.168 with HTTP; Thu, 8 May 2014 03:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP243Uq8HKqJ0bedp7CPXzEc01HnwxRAuFfFEAatbAJT3A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <536A8592.8010009@gmail.com>
<CA+s+GJASND3OU2e+YxUeLmSOW6pTkMwuzHCHeJnnihg6xK9Caw@mail.gmail.com>
<536A902C.6080602@gmail.com>
<CA+s+GJCaUX3ErgVean0e91CBorPc6RNKgYs08fOOsqNYtbd6RA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2aUBFkwx0s_xcS_e4gv1Ao1240NVNNFR3bFUBf9hHqsA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+s+GJC7p-W6EeGwsPXG7oDccpC_LfjE-mAiZjpkMtRwxH5sMw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgR0CtYeLmp8pmMFvtOyqrhNgz0U-BsfBQ7QRr3dM-7J9g@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+s+GJDm=J6-SYr4KEZ70f46E3U61Yva36a-gccRFSiT5ia2-g@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP243Uq8HKqJ0bedp7CPXzEc01HnwxRAuFfFEAatbAJT3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 12:32:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJC-KCsFSO-xLargBZ2y-5MFcU6=_vYePHVgpYo1qwL+0g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(laanwj[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-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: 1WiLdR-0000GH-W6
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Announcing the Statoshi fork
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, 08 May 2014 10:33:07 -0000
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:
>> In a way it looks similar to how the Bitcoin DNS seeds work, trying to
>> find good and stable nodes, although more extensive.
>
>
> Yeah, it's somewhat similar, except that Tor directory authorities are
> authenticated (the public keys are in the source code), whereas DNS seeds
> aren't. Also Bitcoin puts way more emphasis on decentralisation than Tor
> does.
Right, having authenticated 'directory authorities' hardcoded in the
source code would be out of the question for bitcoin.
Either the stats would have to be public, or private/authenticated to
parties the owner of the node configures themselves.
Wladimir
|
