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 0717B69 for ; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 23:24:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi0-f44.google.com (mail-oi0-f44.google.com [209.85.218.44]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B1CF8C for ; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 23:24:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f44.google.com with SMTP id h6so76887475oia.2 for ; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:24:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=aoRS1595AxmWDqugrfg+aUmyWpI6O8nIfaUHeMlE9hU=; b=fI7rgMkkWV3/6AXz1vGdL5k/isg+suWOEk/wnkAHdn61FR4MGjQvTpp8iRulkULaI/ DcyS3qdeidRDpWCAd4mKpPbF64GfuSLk8XrODKcQ4gs2rt2g7S/dt5bhqYsrnWTANYsH 3LgyeMnOlHpk3fEiu7YWsGPgWlSPegukMrhOXwS9cvwMCa8BCzoRqsS434yozOgTVsUc Y36wa1PKRdZ0CAtVT2J0oQRzNtXg14023WnaKiUisOaSG30jGNSuwofDQWfWwx5ewG2Y SeXPFgqOh/maBjPDoWdMhLFMaM8wYo8WKO2dy5FRNZfnwl/4tq93tTSSliRvtXAReo/w pH1w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=aoRS1595AxmWDqugrfg+aUmyWpI6O8nIfaUHeMlE9hU=; b=jvsmXx3L/QQ9FJKZ5aa6CzBI2pWonIbNcl11eebvAUG8Dp98e8kXkq+k0ItYTj44/t jLMCH2h3rG/szgCF9WixuYJ4ndsw1uoo7AFHvb/77lNCEBPLCzJP+MuL9MpKVJuJIDpE G7AM/8pI5pIq2KDt2fKsIRylmSEQy2i64SbgSZ+OR93O1ycWPQ5z3hKPQs8dz/myuyTW pN9kbS8JM7zNWUTpLub2trWAKRW1BiQ4m9cCLael8LOMDevwD3+JdZwoam0FrHb7kYrE sTQ9q9SMoWYrSImTCFfKP9CPsUn2Z0hRsURxG1FtoTZeLosaS6NQ3RXRw5v3Cbvrjb40 v3aA== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJZ63LoRopN1aWc3k1KxQ1Kkgp8Qdg8iv9yQ4tcPWHndTtC0srNaHobkg5wZqgXYhZ1wy2cqbGHuiHjRQ== X-Received: by 10.202.90.3 with SMTP id o3mr9174879oib.96.1459034644622; Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:24:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <56F2B51C.8000105@jonasschnelli.ch> <2590065.B4dTBeyc1A@garp> <56F586B4.8020507@jonasschnelli.ch> <4517402.JLxTDjem5X@garp> In-Reply-To: <4517402.JLxTDjem5X@garp> From: James MacWhyte Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 23:23:54 +0000 Message-ID: To: Tom , bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d5edcb53448052efbf9c9 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 08:17:23 +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: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 23:24:08 -0000 --001a113d5edcb53448052efbf9c9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:34 AM Tom via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Friday 25 Mar 2016 19:43:00 Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > An encrypted channel together with a trusted full node would finally > > allow to have a secure and save SPV communication. > > I guess my question didn't get across. > > Why would you want to make your usecase do connections over the peer2peer > (net.cpp) connection at all? > > Mixing messages that are being sent to everyone and encrypted messages is > asking for trouble. > Making your private connection out-of-band would work much better. > > I agree doing it out-of-band is the easiest solution for people who need this privacy right now, but I do like the idea of adding this feature as the number of SPV wallets is going to increase. I think the best way to organize things would be to give encrypted messages their own port number, similar to how http vs. https works. We don't want two networks to develop, separated by which nodes support encryption and which don't, so ideally nodes would rebroadcast messages they receive on both (encrypted and non-encrypted) channels. This would essentially double the required bandwidth of the network, which is something to think about. > > > Also, you didn't actually address the attack-vector. > > > > Which attack-vector? > > The statistical attack I mentioned earlier. Which comes from knowing which > plain text messages are being sent over the encrypted channel, So as long > as > you keep saying you want to encrypt data that identical copies of are being > sent to other nodes at practically the same time, you will keep being > vulnerable to that. > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a113d5edcb53448052efbf9c9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sat= , Mar 26, 2016 at 1:34 AM Tom via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org&g= t; wrote:
On Friday 25 Mar 2016 19:= 43:00 Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> An encrypted channel together with a trusted full node would finally > allow to have a secure and save SPV communication.

I guess my question didn't get across.

Why would you want to make your usecase do connections over the peer2peer (net.cpp) connection at all?

Mixing messages that are being sent to everyone and encrypted messages is asking for trouble.
Making your private connection out-of-band would work much better.


I agree doing it out-of-band is the ea= siest solution for people who need this privacy right now, but I do like th= e idea of adding this feature as the number of SPV wallets is going to incr= ease. I think the best way to organize things would be to give encrypted me= ssages their own port number, similar to how http vs. https works.

W= e don't want two networks to develop, separated by which nodes support = encryption and which don't, so ideally nodes would rebroadcast messages= they receive on both (encrypted and non-encrypted) channels. This would es= sentially double the required bandwidth of the network, which is something = to think about.
=C2=A0
> > Also, you didn't actually address the attack-vector.
>
> Which attack-vector?

The statistical attack I mentioned earlier.=C2=A0 Which comes from knowing = which
plain text messages are being sent over the encrypted channel, So as long a= s
you keep saying you want to encrypt data that identical copies of are being=
sent to other nodes at practically the same time, you will keep being
vulnerable to that.


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--001a113d5edcb53448052efbf9c9--