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 9D47A86 for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 10:41:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx-out01.mykolab.com (mx01.mykolab.com [95.128.36.1]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12A01106 for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 10:41:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com X-Spam-Score: -2.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx05.mykolab.com (mx05.mykolab.com [10.20.7.161]) by mx-out01.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1401615E1; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 11:41:05 +0100 (CET) From: Tom To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Chris Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 10:41:04 +0000 Message-ID: <9565898.d3O8M9NKBW@garp> In-Reply-To: <56F421F0.8090307@gmail.com> References: <56F2B51C.8000105@jonasschnelli.ch> <56F421F0.8090307@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:30:44 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] p2p authentication and encryption BIPs X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 10:41:08 -0000 On Thursday 24 Mar 2016 13:20:48 Chris via bitcoin-dev wrote: > As far as the use cases others mentioned, connecting and SPV wallet to > your full node is certainly one. It would make it easy to, say, connect > the android bitcoin-wallet to your own node. I've hacked on that wallet > to make it connect to my .onion node, but it's very slow border-line > unusable. Basic encryption and authentication would make that viable. What about using some interface, much like the JSON one (but more likely the zeroMQ one) instead? Would that not solve the problem? I'm thinking that would not be a replacement for a full-node-connection but in addition. Which means that some questions can be asked over that channel that you need authentication for. It would be a much better separation of concerns.