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
|
Return-Path: <natanael.l@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E5BC279
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:04:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-lb0-f171.google.com (mail-lb0-f171.google.com
[209.85.217.171])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 165C311B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:04:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by lbbqi7 with SMTP id qi7so59474237lbb.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=OYgTQOJA6o15euqxGwa763mSO33GkQI5i+jobhBPUKU=;
b=BcjSB2XNcSdOY4GljelW1MYLubwDCNaevGINmkWp4c2U8Pv6hNWN/sAWdvA/AxPOtu
cseo9nQQ9TYQm52JoZwIm9lcWhpvyzudwr1VT69+6unSRODuiMW9BJb+tLywXPpFogId
ikt1XdKcB7DP3e6PUpMwZFe9R3anb0WWFzp1he/AB4Xn32WzJOa1pJTCbOPRc2b0u0HB
Ko5nZ3m1yMwYs1WhdGx3Ji74HyeTukozs4sPzIzQDUj4U9EG0p4rAYIibmfiSIpdkFy+
cw4838KQO/XwNHAfBkCNFdSA8jZk4HSWjCSc6jVjokMh05evXUJ28W2RgxO1403v5OJ4
j7Yw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.36.196 with SMTP id s4mr3132151laj.10.1437581072518;
Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.184.175 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.184.175 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:04:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55AFBBE6.3060702@electrum.org>
References: <55AFBBE6.3060702@electrum.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 18:04:32 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAt2M1-wf53=qUM+Q=1YrkEz+WT5PnZsobfzdNENtV5dN7847w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Natanael <natanael.l@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Voegtlin <thomasv@electrum.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160bb1629d451051b78ed64
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making Electrum more anonymous
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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, 22 Jul 2015 16:04:35 -0000
--089e0160bb1629d451051b78ed64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
- Sent from my tablet
Den 22 jul 2015 17:51 skrev "Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
>
> Hello,
>
> Although Electrum clients connect to several servers in order to fetch
> block headers, they typically request address balances and address
> histories from a single server. This means that the chosen server knows
> that a given set of addresses belong to the same wallet. That is true
> even if Electrum is used over TOR.
>
> There have been various proposals to improve on that, but none of them
> really convinced me so far. One recurrent proposal has been to create
> subsets of wallet addresses, and to send them to separate servers. In my
> opinion, this does not really improve anonymity, because it requires
> trusting more servers.
>
> Here is an idea, inspired by TOR, on which I would like to have some
> feedback: We create an anonymous routing layer between Electrum servers
> and clients.
Why not look at something like Dissent? http://dedis.cs.yale.edu/dissent/
This protocol reduces the impact of Sybil attacks.
--089e0160bb1629d451051b78ed64
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
<p dir="ltr"></p>
<p dir="ltr">- Sent from my tablet<br>
Den 22 jul 2015 17:51 skrev "Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev" <<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>>:<br>
><br>
> Hello,<br>
><br>
> Although Electrum clients connect to several servers in order to fetch<br>
> block headers, they typically request address balances and address<br>
> histories from a single server. This means that the chosen server knows<br>
> that a given set of addresses belong to the same wallet. That is true<br>
> even if Electrum is used over TOR.<br>
><br>
> There have been various proposals to improve on that, but none of them<br>
> really convinced me so far. One recurrent proposal has been to create<br>
> subsets of wallet addresses, and to send them to separate servers. In my<br>
> opinion, this does not really improve anonymity, because it requires<br>
> trusting more servers.<br>
><br>
> Here is an idea, inspired by TOR, on which I would like to have some<br>
> feedback: We create an anonymous routing layer between Electrum servers<br>
> and clients.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Why not look at something like Dissent? <a href="http://dedis.cs.yale.edu/dissent/">http://dedis.cs.yale.edu/dissent/</a></p>
<p dir="ltr">This protocol reduces the impact of Sybil attacks. <br>
</p>
--089e0160bb1629d451051b78ed64--
|
