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 <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1Xu5hm-0002SE-5T
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 27 Nov 2014 20:30:22 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.223.169 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.223.169; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ie0-f169.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ie0-f169.google.com ([209.85.223.169])
	by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1Xu5hl-0006iH-Bj
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 27 Nov 2014 20:30:22 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id y20so5091150ier.0
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:30:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.50.228 with SMTP id f4mr29590622igo.49.1417120216106;
	Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:30:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.107.18.65 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Nov 2014 12:30:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABssiCqwF_JFLfnSd5Hhh6oN6w2YzOVhjmWD3oMznLpvmvQNsw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABssiCqwF_JFLfnSd5Hhh6oN6w2YzOVhjmWD3oMznLpvmvQNsw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 20:30:16 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgR65CW41V2z0b6mxGYyVavuYQfMGEV7B00ogWrwOXA+_A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Mistr Bigs <misterbg6@gmail.com>
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
	(gmaxwell[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: 1Xu5hl-0006iH-Bj
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Deanonymisation of clients in Bitcoin P2P
 network paper
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 20:30:22 -0000

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Mistr Bigs <misterbg6@gmail.com> wrote:
> I might be mistaken, but it seems to me this paper discusses unintended ways
> of obtaining the IP addresses of clients involved in transactions on the
> core Bitcoin network.

You're mistaken. :)

If a node is used exclusively via tor it effectively doesn't have a IP address.

(short of bugs of a class that aren't discussed here)

The paper is about fingerprinting approaches that probabilistically
connect transactions to hosts that you can already identify their IPs.