From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XLFSq-0002CD-1b for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 17:50:56 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from nl.grid.coop ([50.7.166.116]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1XLFSf-0002zL-Kt for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 17:50:56 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 1000) by nl.grid.coop with local; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:50:38 -0500 id 000000000006E26C.0000000053F8D46E.00005779 Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:50:38 -0500 From: Troy Benjegerdes To: Justus Ranvier Message-ID: <20140823175038.GU22640@nl.grid.coop> References: <53F3DFF7.9070709@jrn.me.uk> <1569765.oHsHtFYAhh@1337h4x0r> <53F8C656.6010200@riseup.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53F8C656.6010200@riseup.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1XLFSf-0002zL-Kt Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Encrypt bitcoin messages X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 17:50:56 -0000 On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 04:50:30PM +0000, Justus Ranvier wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 08/23/2014 04:17 PM, xor wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 07:40:39 PM Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> Encryption is of little value if you may deduce the same > >> information by observing packet sizes and timings. > > > > Instead of spawning a discussion whether this aspect is a reason to > > NOT encrypt, you should do the obvious: > > > > Fix that as well. X being broken is not a reason for not fixing Y. > > Pad the then encrypted packets with random bytes. The fact that > > they are encrypted makes them look like random data already, so the > > padding will not be distinguishable from the rest. Also, add some > > random bias to their timing. > > The packet size and timing issue will become less of an issue as the > network grows anyway. > > One transaction inserted into a 3 transaction-per-second encrypted > stream is more obvious than the same transaction inserted into a 100 > or 1000 TPS stream. The requirement for anonymity and privacy is lawyers and a Bitlicense. If you want privacy and anonymity, then do high-frequency trading on a centralized exchange, and if you want to go over-the-top, run some arbitrage bots as well, and hide in the millions of transactions per second that go on. But make sure you get a Bitlicense and have a good securities lawyer. Trying to solve a legal/legislative/social problem with more crypto is only going to serve the people who created the legal/legislative/social problem in the first place, because they can hire a hacker who will find a misplaced (} in your crypto code, and all the work you did to encrypt wire protocols becomes silently worthless.