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 E26A11190 for ; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 12:55:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from SNT004-OMC2S20.hotmail.com (snt004-omc2s20.hotmail.com [65.55.90.95]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88ADE139 for ; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 12:55:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from NAM02-BL2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([65.55.90.73]) by SNT004-OMC2S20.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.23008); Sun, 5 Mar 2017 04:55:38 -0800 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outlook.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=TY04TV9VQTFFERJM9Ae902Jactv+tyJbvQR7n1wzfqc=; b=E994+9aCbIfBztxRTy1kKl+hiBvxKXOvTEMSOLBTpK9/+gr0uKlHt5QJHGd4eAAc4FFOeP2S1yoEWCJ8cUhPrKTJcwOkH7zyhOn9BZW0SoFNa8SrRCyGUiMwXgDS5f9eL+3Q4C0MBX1mnIGnxPXmuuoRZYjTg+6wIRud2teNOBIGZBbhxE9QHB2D8+8kFgGDKVrp2bw2dSY+51N9clSkJSk7w+d+SnpV7RuGO1kpAuSDwsh0tahhOm166mgsGJ2hzOD9z5oLk7bA7m4vp+f09Ohsz7b4LrTmlwy5GCjcMzp+gP9qV5l+kO/dgDwoqH1zHIOKJQpV8wmoXsnCDgDudQ== Received: from BL2NAM02FT041.eop-nam02.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.76.57) by BL2NAM02HT007.eop-nam02.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.76.253) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.947.7; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 12:55:37 +0000 Received: from BL2PR03MB435.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.152.76.58) by BL2NAM02FT041.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.77.122) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.947.7 via Frontend Transport; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 12:55:37 +0000 Received: from BL2PR03MB435.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.92.24]) by BL2PR03MB435.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.92.24]) with mapi id 15.01.0947.018; Sun, 5 Mar 2017 12:55:33 +0000 From: John Hardy To: Marcel Jamin , "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Thread-Topic: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers Thread-Index: AQHSlQC2uBBD8WtSHEG5hC7gQs1fHKGFyZ4AgABkFUk= Sender: John Hardy Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 12:55:27 +0000 Message-ID: References: , In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: jamin.net; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; jamin.net; dmarc=none action=none header.from=seebitcoin.com; x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:11439CC977B24398BB308ED438C705B3E4A2A74F0C9639F8C3B0C75D2009E3BF; UpperCasedChecksum:71355AC14AFD395E769A67A850F823ABABED9DFB3B3D05D2371938E6483D8EB1; SizeAsReceived:7971; Count:40 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 2 x-tmn: [SP6IU7K53sIxYc8/8EYnLAt/LoIc2QZb] x-incomingheadercount: 40 x-eopattributedmessage: 0 x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BL2NAM02HT007; 5:jUA758MSqgqT9JN6wepY5CPX5D+YCHgjz0a95iw/eXMIQlJx2DZ3mDf5mPg4RmWG9l2lAYBA1+V6OrcqPTCt37xu0AeBbeV1GMF6cKM4gZkQJ8p3b9CxTikh7q2E+gp2u9F0hfSxy02Nqlq7JK2SAg==; 24:h+0QR3J2pSH7Dfl8cPzB/cjEso3IjM6rupkF72JHWRQwOeoiTLaNmQclLb8ArhDEecwo/n9ch+W3qsbiXdHDmrIzHQHGuYFleIuCMWwLeAg=; 7:DxXhKPVeZ2+VMjSIFl0OwIJpphmKOAIptJ2u8w2pdxBemcA1Lr7pmgb4Sx/v8IvdJIGgTwMgpuNT5zkwe8eCZ2WtvLcG/1JJSCpEXmpkYyhVUzLHHad9HoEhqUQhhEkJtNvInV4hI+buhSGmAJrFlF3WWt/T63rTjyfBQOj3jLjSSefpQy/z8AS8twqb1LERFbut7MyyglKCTNPAFMdUSBMcTi0zu6rh5uMOX3ulkPM2Tj/zilrmwXPA7VJAqV7xKVueEj5EgjMPQcL3zNPaFq+xPLaGdDghVR3Xl15vrjrAgGI2xqW75pxRU0sHCSM8 x-forefront-antispam-report: EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(98900015); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2NAM02HT007; H:BL2PR03MB435.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 35d084a6-8cff-42af-9dfd-08d463c6e90c x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(201702061074)(5061506573)(5061507331)(1603103135)(1601125254)(1603101448)(1701031045); SRVR:BL2NAM02HT007; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(432015087)(444000031); SRVR:BL2NAM02HT007; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BL2NAM02HT007; x-forefront-prvs: 02379661A3 spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BL2PR03MB435C86E2A913C0D1BE08A03EE2D0BL2PR03MB435namprd_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 05 Mar 2017 12:55:27.6142 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BL2NAM02HT007 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Mar 2017 12:55:38.0898 (UTC) FILETIME=[CA0F4720:01D295AF] X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 05 Mar 2017 13:13:18 +0000 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2017 12:55:41 -0000 --_000_BL2PR03MB435C86E2A913C0D1BE08A03EE2D0BL2PR03MB435namprd_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Wouldn't this actually *need* to be a bitcoin address that is included in= a block I think it being a bitcoin address probably makes the most sense. The addre= ss could even be used for donations to incentivise identifier use. I had not really envisaged this having any blockchain presence though. It w= as just an easy way to give third party node monitors like coin.dance and b= itnodes.21.co a few more metrics. That said, it would allow the creation of a 'nodepool', where each node cou= ld broadcast its latest status like a transaction, and every node has a reg= ister of active nodes. Like a mempool, but for nodes. By leveraging the randomness of node identities, it could be that a determi= nistic subset of nodes randomly check that a new node status update is legi= timate by querying the node directly (a small enough subset to not cause a = DDOS). If a threshhold of those random checking nodes reports that the node= either doesn't exist or is responding with conflicting information, this w= ill become evident to the network and can be flagged. This should paint a pretty accurate picture of the state of the network, an= d might also prove useful for developing 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 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 a= go already. Even if included in a block, people could sell their aged IDs (if we were t= o rely on those for anything). Also funding that ID address would might tie your economic activity (or eve= n identity) to a node. On 4 March 2017 at 17:04, John Hardy via bitcoin-dev > wrote: The discussion of UASF got me thinking about whether such a method might le= ad to sybil attacks, with new nodes created purely to inflate the node coun= t for a particular implementation in an attempt at social engineering. I had an idea for an anonymous, opt-in, unique node identification mechanis= m to help counter this. This would give every node the opportunity to create a node =91address=92/u= nique identifier. This could even come in the form of a Bitcoin address. The node on first installation generates and backs up a private key. The co= rresponding public key becomes that node=92s unique identifier. If the node= switches to a new software version or a new IP, the identifier can remain = constant if the node operator chooses. Asking a node for its identifier can be done by sending a message the comma= nd =91identify=92 and a challenge. The node can then respond with its uniqu= e identifier and a signature for the challenge to prove it. The node can al= so include what software it is running and sign this information so it can = be verified as legitimate by third parties. Why would we do this? Well, it adds a small but very useful piece of data when compiling lists of= active nodes. Any register of active nodes can have a record of when a node identifier wa= s =93first seen=94, and how many IPs the same identifier has broadcast from= . Also, crucially, we could see what software the node operator has been se= en running historically. This information would make it easy to identify patterns. For example if a = huge new group of nodes appeared on the network with no history for their i= dentifier they could likely be dismissed as sybil attacks. If a huge number= of nodes that had been reporting as Bitcoin Core for an extended period of= time started switching to a rival implementation, this would add credibili= ty but not certainty (keys could be traded), that the shift was more organi= c. This would be trivial to implement, is (to me?) non-controversial, and woul= d give a way for a node to link itself to a pseudo-anonymous identity, but = with the freedom to opt-out at any time. Keen to hear any thoughts? Thanks, John Hardy john@seebitcoin.com _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --_000_BL2PR03MB435C86E2A913C0D1BE08A03EE2D0BL2PR03MB435namprd_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> Wouldn't this actually *need* to be a bitcoin address that i= s included in a block


I think it being a bitcoin address probably makes the most sense. The addre= ss could even be used for donations to incentivise identifier use.

I had not really envisaged this having any blockchain presence though. It w= as just an easy way to give third party node monitors like coin.dance and b= itnodes.21.co a few more metrics.

That said, it would allow the creation of a 'nodepool', where each node cou= ld broadcast its latest status like a transaction, and every node has a reg= ister of active nodes. Like a mempool, but for nodes.

By leveraging the randomness of node identities, it could be that a de= terministic subset of nodes randomly check that a new node status update is= legitimate by querying the node directly (a small enough subset to not cau= se a DDOS). If a threshhold of those random checking nodes reports that the node either doesn't exist or is res= ponding with conflicting information, this will become evident to the netwo= rk and can be flagged.

This should paint a pretty accurate picture of the state of the networ= k, and might also prove useful for developing lightning routing?

From: Marcel Jamin <marc= el@jamin.net>
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 actually *need* to be a bitcoin address t= hat 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.

Even if included in a block, people could sell their ag= ed IDs (if we were to rely on those for anything).

Also funding that ID address would might tie your econo= mic activity (or even identity) to a node.

On 4 March 2017 at 17:04, John Hardy via bitcoin= -dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

The discussion of UAS= F got me thinking about whether such a method might lead to sybil attacks, with new nodes created purely to infla= te the node count for a particular implementation in an attempt at social e= ngineering.


I had an idea for an = anonymous, opt-in, unique node identification mechanism to help counter this.


This would give every= node the opportunity to create a node =91address=92/unique identifier. This could even come in the form of a Bit= coin address.


The node on first ins= tallation generates and backs up a private key. The corresponding public key becomes that node=92s unique identifier.= If the node switches to a new software version or a new IP, the identifier= can remain constant if the node operator chooses.


Asking a node for its= identifier can be done by sending a message the command =91identify=92 and a challenge. The node can then respond with= its unique identifier and a signature for the challenge to prove it. The n= ode can also include what software it is running and sign this information = so it can be verified as legitimate by third parties.


Why would we do this?=


Well, it adds a small= but very useful piece of data when compiling lists of active nodes.


Any register of activ= e nodes can have a record of when a node identifier was =93first seen=94, and how many IPs the same identifier has = broadcast from. Also, crucially, we could see what software the node operat= or has been seen running historically.


This information woul= d make it easy to identify patterns. For example if a huge new group of nodes appeared on the network with no histo= ry for their identifier they could likely be dismissed as sybil attacks. If= a huge number of nodes that had been reporting as Bitcoin Core for an exte= nded period of time started switching to a rival implementation, this would add credibility but not certainty (k= eys could be traded), that the shift was more organic.


This would be trivial= to implement, is (to me?) non-controversial, and would give a way for a node to link itself to a pseudo-anonymous ident= ity, but with the freedom to opt-out at any time.


Keen to hear any thou= ghts?


Thanks,


John Hardy

john@seebitcoin.com


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--_000_BL2PR03MB435C86E2A913C0D1BE08A03EE2D0BL2PR03MB435namprd_--