From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A4B788A for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 20:26:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f52.google.com (mail-pa0-f52.google.com [209.85.220.52]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFAC222A for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 20:26:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id b13so31514484pat.0 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:26:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=8/tMRZgidlHUO4qYGGaOgUzx5pSA2NNBO1I5MXQNTgE=; b=Ds2z8zv2JRu8qFoJOL4DVrN2Ljax7cE0zr8JER3PapMOb6m4biNYipm/ya1/0vi3Ba xnuvP6dNH3gpGA0Twbp5CHFFF4eyVnaeiaG4pns0uZu/IkSTakSxMV2pltZiscjLX53D 30iF9F7UkeNaHn2VhfeBrUY50Q0+l2cM9yf1M1aaaC94uSsmC3/zGuUq5z0fWtWPV50R 5lHMxM63HJ+ddSPgQXUxUNuejsaeZQUeTMKvJmdzhdEGbCXUEK6EgGMukZUwuDZOaQ0a Or0o8Y72GBlYcX+WDsmrECEmgt7FQdj8rLwNn+hxiRUrRWRJgMgeSSAS5fIvTEd53bu8 sLHQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=8/tMRZgidlHUO4qYGGaOgUzx5pSA2NNBO1I5MXQNTgE=; b=kqcU7y224+kf0UloPaHk4eprAWXbFoy8DFnR4J9WBoLNNohHUiohFxqCRXojj0cmoR x5UoTbKQyAAnuL8VweEXxgBFYhnRH0cDnYV2SL/mJnjxspP4ObYN1J3MbkmnctL5Vrru rM59s5sNy4B6nO26nrUavmsMmGimcSqbKl7Fc1jOzB1iWGwuF7FuryG0JJF2kR2YRTY2 Jmvip2fF7LiAN48yZAry4P+X118Impy4jAPBduSJ+cqD5gO7QLFAQg952Jw7LT/Eb87H U58CIrbFiPHrBGZoROENRzJidF91J9dn+V6ZTB6sVPfF2kmeipNszGLOEnICbcsr2AKd SKWA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJw/UxvV1X90qkp8x6LDpvv1OwakurUrVfJOExC+gaWnuDdtv0GoH0fmwbh064DvQ== X-Received: by 10.66.149.66 with SMTP id ty2mr24686855pab.153.1467318414486; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:26:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.171.23.222] ([166.170.43.16]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z9sm7924697pax.11.2016.06.30.13.26.53 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 30 Jun 2016 13:26:53 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Eric Voskuil X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13F69) In-Reply-To: <20160630190613.GA6758@fedora-21-dvm> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 22:26:48 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <85F9E196-7D56-40DE-83A2-15255A56B115@voskuil.org> References: <577234A4.3030808@jonasschnelli.ch> <360EF9B8-A174-41CA-AFDD-2BC2C0B4DECB@voskuil.org> <20160629111728.GO13338@dosf1.alfie.wtf> <2981A919-4550-4807-8ED9-F8C51B2DC061@voskuil.org> <57750EAB.3020105@jonasschnelli.ch> <426C2AA3-BFB8-4C41-B4DF-4D6CC11988B2@voskuil.org> <577513DB.60101@jonasschnelli.ch> <20160630165227.GA5816@fedora-21-dvm> <663B51FE-D8D5-4570-ACA6-D1405D98C773@voskuil.org> <20160630190613.GA6758@fedora-21-dvm> To: Peter Todd X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE, 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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 21:01:01 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 151 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 20:26:55 -0000 > On Jun 30, 2016, at 9:06 PM, Peter Todd wrote: >=20 > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 08:25:45PM +0200, Eric Voskuil wrote: >>> To be clear, are you against Bitcoin Core's tor support? >>>=20 >>> Because node-to-node connections over tor are encrypted, and make use of= onion >>> addresses, which are self-authenticated in the exact same way as BIP151 p= roposes. >>=20 >> BIP151 is self-admittedly insufficient to protect against a MITM attack. I= t proposes node identity to close this hole (future BIP required). The yet-t= o-be-specified requirement for node identity is the basis of my primary conc= ern. This is not self-authentication. >>=20 >>> And we're shipping that in production as of 0.12.0, and by default Tor o= nion support is enabled and will be automatically setup if you have a recent= version of Tor installed. >>>=20 >>> Does that "create pressure to expand node identity"? >>=20 >> The orthogonal question of whether Tor is safe for use with the Bitcoin P= 2P protocol is a matter of existing research. >=20 > I don't think you answered my question. >=20 > Again, we _already have_ the equivalent of BIP151 functionality in Bitcoin= > Core, shipping in production, but implemented with a Tor dependency. >=20 > BIP151 removes that dependency on Tor, enabling encrypted connections > regardless of whether or not you have Tor installed. >=20 > So any arguments against BIP151 being implemented, are equally arguments > against our existing Tor onion support. Are you against that support? Beca= use > if you aren't, you can't have any objections to BIP151 being implemented Neither Tor nor Bitcoin Core are part of this BIP (or its proposed dependenc= y on node identity). But again, given that node identity is not part of the Bitcoin Core Tor inte= gration, my objection to the presumption of node identity by BIP151 is unrel= ated to Bitcoin Core's Tor integration. e=