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: <vitteaymeric@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A77C6932
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 9 Mar 2017 11:02:01 +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 7D9F414F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 9 Mar 2017 11:02:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wm0-f51.google.com with SMTP id t189so52917351wmt.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 09 Mar 2017 03:02:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=fSgFuyrHKWnUgPmxgOpKW/8kQaC0+eQjBeibX+49IjY=;
b=T2acPXOgAuc+Maw9aPSyu/BQeSaEeQ4g0lWpdzUQ9DgkhUtJDGfG9WZMJXDdg1gEFW
3WzdckhqZ/jLfj/hBpZRj3hmXrLpXpxG9nn8psMCfsvyiZGzfGWDfQyv8StWuezl7ZpX
4otSlu9uIvBgA5BH4Ij8xs/DlccewPcYFwMqEkJop5yhTErQ1g99PYE3yS3pZt7ImRxf
gdwv+l1R5Y6FY5i/U3pkYzTA97Ro3PQvpAQQkxJlDIHYKNOFHPg9vmjZGwtfJ5Z7WKvI
BlSNwFj+zGqhGU0kfyrFCccdJPxsTT4aaG7krMAUREUnTpgUaiE5ML0ih8BV6qI5m0k2
mUxg==
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:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=fSgFuyrHKWnUgPmxgOpKW/8kQaC0+eQjBeibX+49IjY=;
b=eUKZBmYLJ8RYeuOSZ6VTMsJ2oyzA1+g6YdBrStHyoZH83H6bio+ivPZjRfh0g8G1Gz
vlWRznUWGCDQj/HL7RCah9oQHo41t/Vot3FjhL7SKiUjuoZ17EO2zsDip9BUtKi/SMlI
3Afujdf0tsYNLYYvYSc2VsFa5zMUKHPxt801zGjvjxU3gjiQD0xygu8V/SAKM5SeWK7I
53Kb5LPL4o8xjyZNhIATIdMS8oR5uI5CEHnkVEo9a71i8znJ46SM7E6PqVBpHSiS9NnY
0RnnCmVnbvrn+njYiHqTgq4odCRSBLfC1ZEs5nodpVoIb+ItFd7UrW72Kxuj1nabrMwW
pdgg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mghM4BDJss3eR3rMs8WBP1o/e4lyNL+oNSHdhwR1DJwa7pfqGowamox7QlkGM7Yw==
X-Received: by 10.28.125.212 with SMTP id y203mr29075725wmc.90.1489057318748;
Thu, 09 Mar 2017 03:01:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.43.58] ([80.12.63.221])
by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id
p12sm7860744wrb.46.2017.03.09.03.01.57
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Thu, 09 Mar 2017 03:01:57 -0800 (PST)
To: 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>
<beed7ade-13be-3a7f-9a4e-99f77378e780@voskuil.org>
<31FB94D1-5B5B-43EF-AFD8-2A7508464F7C@jonasschnelli.ch>
<CAPg+sBhKMWVRSka+iZvLn1B94eBgrzakw73pX40XHPMH647C7A@mail.gmail.com>
<6a5a6a8f-d689-260a-76a9-a91f6bda56c5@voskuil.org>
<CAPg+sBg-ihLOi4eq6mCti=bGtbe0sWYv3ScmWoEZ8d=dHDQ5Mw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <06ccf31d-c895-4b7c-fc4b-89dad30f524e@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 12:01:49 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBg-ihLOi4eq6mCti=bGtbe0sWYv3ScmWoEZ8d=dHDQ5Mw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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
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: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 11:02:01 -0000
As stated in this thread and as I see it the use of BIP150 is optional,
so if some parties want to trust each others and use it, then they can,
if they don't like it and don't want to use it, then they don't use it
Unless I misread, some statements in this thread involving the Tor
network are wrong, the Tor network is a centralized network, each node
(except the bridges) have a long term identity key and have to prove
periodically to the authority servers that they are the owners of this
key, if not the other nodes will never extend circuits to them, then
they will be of course quite difficult to reach
Unfortunately the original proposal starting this thread seems to be
reinventing this system that probably can only lead to something
centralized which cannot apply for the bitcoin network (the Tor network
is centralized because the team want to control what is happening:
sybils, bugs, attacks, blacklist etc)
Unless some peers/nodes have decided to trust each others (BIP150) I
don't think it's a good idea at all that bitcoin nodes have anything
similar to long term nodeIDs (see
https://gist.github.com/Ayms/aab6f8e08fef0792ab3448f542a826bf , already
posted, not final, not finished, and the title does not really reflect
what would be the proposal today, but it carefully avoids any
possibility for a full node to have a long term ID)
Le 09/03/2017 à 02:55, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev a écrit :
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org> wrote:
>> On 03/08/2017 03:12 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote:
>>> 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).
>> Weak identity is insufficient to produce the problem scenario that is at
>> the heart of my concern (excluding people). It is this "[same] except
>> more secure" distinction that is the problem. You brush past that as if
>> it did not exist.
> So you're saying that a -onlyacceptconnectionsfrom=IP option wouldn't
> be a concern to you because it can't exclude people? Of course it can
> exclude people - just not your ISP or a state-level attacker.
>
> Please, Eric. I think I understand your concern, but this argument
> isn't constructive either.
>
> The proposal here is to introduce visible node identities on the
> network. I think that's misguided as node count is irrelevant and
> trivial to fake anyway. But you bringing up BIP150 here isn't useful
> either. I know that you equate the concept of having verifiable
> identity keys in the P2P with a step towards making every node
> identifiable, but they are not the same. It's just a cryptographic
> tool to keep a certain class of attackers from bypassing restrictions
> that people can already make.
>
--
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
|
