From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XJRpO-0004rM-O6 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 18:38:46 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.181; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f181.google.com; Received: from mail-ig0-f181.google.com ([209.85.213.181]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XJRpO-0006SS-4H for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 18:38:46 +0000 Received: by mail-ig0-f181.google.com with SMTP id h3so8477336igd.14 for ; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 11:38:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.39.8 with SMTP id l8mr701121igk.13.1408387120606; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 11:38:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.1.209 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 11:38:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20140818164543.GB31175@localhost.localdomain> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 20:38:40 +0200 Message-ID: From: Wladimir To: Gregory Maxwell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (laanwj[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1XJRpO-0006SS-4H Cc: Bitcoin Development Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: Outbound connections rotation 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: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 18:38:46 -0000 > The optimal strategy for avoiding linkages (ignoring tor, again), is > to randomly pick a different peer for each transaction and relay the > transaction only to that peer. This can (and probably should) be > distinct from your normal network connectivity. It already happens with 8 peers that if you have lousy peers, the transaction doesn't reach the network on the first broadcasting. When sending to only one random peer it will likely be even worse. I guess the wallet could send out the transaction 'staggered' over time. It could pick a random new node, broadcast the transaction, wait a bit, pick a new node, broadcast the transaction until it is comes back through one of the other peers. Separating the transaction broadcasting (of the wallet) from, for example, the nodes used to request blocks from could make sense. Maybe doubly so if bloom filters are involved. Wladimir