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
|
Return-Path: <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B113C7A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 8 Mar 2017 23:12:04 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com (mail-wm0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0C221A7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 8 Mar 2017 23:12:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wm0-f51.google.com with SMTP id v186so126711337wmd.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 08 Mar 2017 15:12:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=85oOlejMq6xgZ+1lTG4bMa2s9WCgPDpEDj9IrFrcM/8=;
b=Eq55LE/QgjF42YmEYcYx8QZiCS8Gyh52TXs95wW1NnJ/Dj4RFPx7mQFm7sYXVosJpk
DZnKcybmiSobLIOK4asYihTvn9VNvkJcoVsNfEaYmvVnJbl48nCDkv//hZfoknKUd4CE
kWNdt0hbrtnQz0GPxniEehbLUJchudZHnbuFEEIYitfZzXE990SQNUVsrOTQx02Btk3d
hViY0AqtwnVOiA6dC8OCIM2mDy92AijDwtTuOrB1Q/sViILKvPXabGU9yPthMzR6lDwf
ET/ezOxmTK/lufu4AhvRwEPhBuID7hMItedyWLgpSDQxoMijMLgW5e5xjB/oq+CJ5cpO
UdUw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=85oOlejMq6xgZ+1lTG4bMa2s9WCgPDpEDj9IrFrcM/8=;
b=XOZM8XixFsGs9th1t1KNLspp1Ye2ZgoeVq8U9DhrjUzSCq9N+E8ijOk8O0ULUmJIGB
5Z1b8gSLL3Fj0e2ENlUpmbZg1kteShka/W5MiSru1ywkX/9PZqpxcMosOpyYAGC8uAX9
gV2oI4v/Pm34ENXg4OG4jkYob2c/EsX0MJ2RYeSo2cBaC0z7itEbCPk9tbqw6kLh4Ddj
JDgzzkAUWlwq1caogfAJOMkoqMkhfoifWKEAC0ughS+3u73rFzIQ0dUeBXEhYckIk4uQ
/lw4ZCK3/jlvqlbOYbVVKm7B8My5sft9bJcCMzEspikI8yjrh7zFdg6yKsN3Udac/vW7
zw3g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mnXrWuzX0Cn+3nmGxYhlKSNcQdBLrQ0/3Sx4swTqLEoWEPlsdRyGc5rYRSat5ZsTQ81XRn7pwBEhuOWA==
X-Received: by 10.28.54.2 with SMTP id d2mr7633283wma.45.1489014722482; Wed,
08 Mar 2017 15:12:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.80.135.5 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:12:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <31FB94D1-5B5B-43EF-AFD8-2A7508464F7C@jonasschnelli.ch>
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>
<beed7ade-13be-3a7f-9a4e-99f77378e780@voskuil.org>
<31FB94D1-5B5B-43EF-AFD8-2A7508464F7C@jonasschnelli.ch>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:12:01 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBhKMWVRSka+iZvLn1B94eBgrzakw73pX40XHPMH647C7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
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 23:12:04 -0000
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Am 08.03.2017 um 22:09 schrieb Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>:
>>
>> 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).
I believe this discussion is getting sidetracked.
There is a difference between identification/fingerprinting (who are
you?) and proving identity (prove that you are who I think you are?).
BIP150 only facilitates the second, not the first. I don't think you
disagree about that, but I want to make it clear for anyone else
following the discussion.
The question is whether it encourages people to establish known and
pre-shared identities for nodes. Perhaps, but not in any way that
IP/onion addresses don't already. Think about it:
* If you know an IP/onion address, you can verify whether some node
has it. If you know an IP/onion address + BIP150 PSK, you can verify
whether some node has it.
* If you know 2 IP/onion addresses, you cannot figure out whether they
correspond to the same node (and if you can, that is a bug, not by
design). If you know 2 (IP/onion addresses, BIP150 PSK) pairs, you
cannot figure out whether they correspond to the same node (and if you
can, that is a bug, not by design).
* If you receive a connection from a node, you cannot know what their
onion address is. If you receive a connection from a node, you cannot
figure out what their PSK is.
In that way, I see BIP150 as an extension of IP addresses, except more
secure against network-level attackers. If you believe the concept of
people establishing links along existing trust lines is a problem, you
should be arguing against features in Bitcoin software that allows
configuring preferred IP addresses to connect to as well (-addnode and
-connect in Bitcoin Core, for example).
Cheers,
--=20
Pieter
|
