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 8B113C7A for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 23:12:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com (mail-wm0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0C221A7 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 23:12:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f51.google.com with SMTP id v186so126711337wmd.0 for ; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 15:12:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=85oOlejMq6xgZ+1lTG4bMa2s9WCgPDpEDj9IrFrcM/8=; b=Eq55LE/QgjF42YmEYcYx8QZiCS8Gyh52TXs95wW1NnJ/Dj4RFPx7mQFm7sYXVosJpk DZnKcybmiSobLIOK4asYihTvn9VNvkJcoVsNfEaYmvVnJbl48nCDkv//hZfoknKUd4CE kWNdt0hbrtnQz0GPxniEehbLUJchudZHnbuFEEIYitfZzXE990SQNUVsrOTQx02Btk3d hViY0AqtwnVOiA6dC8OCIM2mDy92AijDwtTuOrB1Q/sViILKvPXabGU9yPthMzR6lDwf ET/ezOxmTK/lufu4AhvRwEPhBuID7hMItedyWLgpSDQxoMijMLgW5e5xjB/oq+CJ5cpO UdUw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=85oOlejMq6xgZ+1lTG4bMa2s9WCgPDpEDj9IrFrcM/8=; b=XOZM8XixFsGs9th1t1KNLspp1Ye2ZgoeVq8U9DhrjUzSCq9N+E8ijOk8O0ULUmJIGB 5Z1b8gSLL3Fj0e2ENlUpmbZg1kteShka/W5MiSru1ywkX/9PZqpxcMosOpyYAGC8uAX9 gV2oI4v/Pm34ENXg4OG4jkYob2c/EsX0MJ2RYeSo2cBaC0z7itEbCPk9tbqw6kLh4Ddj JDgzzkAUWlwq1caogfAJOMkoqMkhfoifWKEAC0ughS+3u73rFzIQ0dUeBXEhYckIk4uQ /lw4ZCK3/jlvqlbOYbVVKm7B8My5sft9bJcCMzEspikI8yjrh7zFdg6yKsN3Udac/vW7 zw3g== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mnXrWuzX0Cn+3nmGxYhlKSNcQdBLrQ0/3Sx4swTqLEoWEPlsdRyGc5rYRSat5ZsTQ81XRn7pwBEhuOWA== X-Received: by 10.28.54.2 with SMTP id d2mr7633283wma.45.1489014722482; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 15:12:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.80.135.5 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:12:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <31FB94D1-5B5B-43EF-AFD8-2A7508464F7C@jonasschnelli.ch> References: <30362205-D0CC-46D9-B924-EFA0A6EA1AC9@jonasschnelli.ch> <31FB94D1-5B5B-43EF-AFD8-2A7508464F7C@jonasschnelli.ch> From: Pieter Wuille Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:12:01 -0800 Message-ID: To: Jonas Schnelli , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Libbitcoin Development 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: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 23:12:04 -0000 On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev wrote: > >> Am 08.03.2017 um 22:09 schrieb Eric Voskuil : >> >> On 03/08/2017 11:47 AM, Jonas Schnelli wrote: >>>>> Nodes are by design not supposed to be identifiable in any way >>>> >>>> This is of course my objection to BIP150 ("a way for peers to ... >>>> guarantee node ownership=E2=80=9C). I believe this discussion is getting sidetracked. There is a difference between identification/fingerprinting (who are you?) and proving identity (prove that you are who I think you are?). BIP150 only facilitates the second, not the first. I don't think you disagree about that, but I want to make it clear for anyone else following the discussion. The question is whether it encourages people to establish known and pre-shared identities for nodes. Perhaps, but not in any way that IP/onion addresses don't already. Think about it: * If you know an IP/onion address, you can verify whether some node has it. If you know an IP/onion address + BIP150 PSK, you can verify whether some node has it. * If you know 2 IP/onion addresses, you cannot figure out whether they correspond to the same node (and if you can, that is a bug, not by design). If you know 2 (IP/onion addresses, BIP150 PSK) pairs, you cannot figure out whether they correspond to the same node (and if you can, that is a bug, not by design). * If you receive a connection from a node, you cannot know what their onion address is. If you receive a connection from a node, you cannot figure out what their PSK is. In that way, I see BIP150 as an extension of IP addresses, except more secure against network-level attackers. If you believe the concept of people establishing links along existing trust lines is a problem, you should be arguing against features in Bitcoin software that allows configuring preferred IP addresses to connect to as well (-addnode and -connect in Bitcoin Core, for example). Cheers, --=20 Pieter