-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Reposting this response since this made it neither to distribution nor
to the moderation archive.
- Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 18:59:42 -0800
From: Eric Voskuil
To
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
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Eric Voskuil 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 li
On 03/08/2017 01:20 PM, Jonas Schnelli wrote:
>
>> Am 08.03.2017 um 22:09 schrieb Eric Voskuil :
>>
>> 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 ...
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
>
>> Am 08.03.2017 um 22:09 schrieb Eric Voskuil :
>>
>> 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 w
On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 20:47:54 CET Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Please Eric. Stop spreading FUD.
> BIP150 has a fingerprint-free **OPTIONAL** authentication. It’s designed
> to not reveal any node identifier/identity without first get a
> crypto.-proof from other peer that he alrea
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“).
>
> Please Eric. Stop spreading FUD.
I'm always willing to debate this issue. I'm
Hi Tom
> Do you know the trick of having an open wifi basestation in a public street
> and how that can lead to tracking? Especially if you have a network of them.
> The trick is this; you set up an open wifi base station with a hidden ssid
> and phones try to connect to it by saying “Are you ssid
> Am 08.03.2017 um 22:09 schrieb Eric Voskuil :
>
> 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“).
>>
>> Please Eric. Stop
>
>>
>> > 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“).
Please Eric. Stop spreading FUD.
BIP150 has a fingerprint-free **OPTIONAL** authentication. It’s designed to not
reveal
: John Hardy; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
SUBJECT: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers
Nodes are by design not supposed to be identifiable in any way,
including persisting identities across IPs changes or when
connecting over different networks (e.g. clearnet/tor). Anything
that makes Bitcoin le
coin does not require node counts, and this proposal is redundant with
BIP150.
e
>
> From: Btc Drak
> Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2017 1:27 PM
> To: John Hardy; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers
>
> Nodes are by design not supposed t
: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers
Nodes are by design not supposed to be identifiable in any way, including
persisting identities across IPs changes or when connecting over different
networks (e.g. clearnet/tor). Anything that makes Bitcoin less private is a
step backwards. Also abso
Nodes are by design not supposed to be identifiable in any way, including
persisting identities across IPs changes or when connecting over different
networks (e.g. clearnet/tor). Anything that makes Bitcoin less private is a
step backwards. Also absolute node count is pretty meaningless since only
veloping lightning routing?
From: Marcel Jamin
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2017 6:29 AM
To: John Hardy; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers
> This could even come in the form of a Bitcoin address.
Wouldn't this actua
> This could even come in the form of a Bitcoin address.
Wouldn't this actually *need* to be a bitcoin address that is included in a
block to get any real assurances about the age if this node id? Otherwise
malicous nodes could lie and claim to have seen a brand new node id years
ago already.
Eve
The discussion of UASF got me thinking about whether such a method might lead
to sybil attacks, with new nodes created purely to inflate the node count for a
particular implementation in an attempt at social engineering.
I had an idea for an anonymous, opt-in, unique node identification mechani
17 matches
Mail list logo
