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 BC307C38 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 21:09:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pf0-f177.google.com (mail-pf0-f177.google.com [209.85.192.177]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43C082D2 for ; Wed, 8 Mar 2017 21:09:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf0-f177.google.com with SMTP id v190so19458155pfb.1 for ; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 13:09:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=A+h5SSmw30VZTZHgVw5FL0C5mSMynw9pVLaRcsQgtmQ=; b=UNcgOjOpb88W75hSItoP2q3BEstfsjAHKgHKOVCU5xgawUkNA7zW6FLMhHKoEKVYya a7Iu3u0ypFYNlVRv88jJ7Wlrb+5zxgRGr3rUmIRhsXrqf2feWr3s7+5L484FQKKYt8qO EBvdP8SaB7qlBVRT+6FFgdg/C90x1Tth6OGbMO4JfHyR0gdqIm1nRk1l4KFwUpF0hnCs Os4D67kPiizrJ8piTL+6RoH7VpIR0MaWDDZ4z4vITT/kIuy4Fp5MXQAENYHVeJE3r4Zq y9vkJ1+6J4W/39D6bKw3VAKRyjfWcJeomxujKSVGik83oMzx9zwwloanueDChuG1AO5J MOWA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=A+h5SSmw30VZTZHgVw5FL0C5mSMynw9pVLaRcsQgtmQ=; b=CPkuP6WhQrLBzrigJh6F4crLrdN5LRKd6ZyW7BBcYMsejw0w3Tt+P6KF/SZxk+riFa 50UNU98Uak/l4g3fBpqTccRFisZAfIXN30ueZFmwYPjrkKhCFt0OP0/uZIulEAkAC/go y6MOZtAXKFepWxPU0e4+mLBofIVtZShhf00lwEf3rszq5M6AFBkG/NN1e78LH68tE1Ew Zgq/5r3q9TFqFgdr4xoyK1xRIKUY+MHrPiMtigM0jlUwPUKsQS8m+OVI3o94aJeeX/77 Qd6ARYSRQrnMusTGM1HpcWY/3YFlhyMK1iW1Gpd03uNVckwEgtOU420aHHkQk59w7ld7 Cm2g== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39laeXrc0qdGvIPehfIpblRtvtLyBoFBbGtwoJm8jISrtmwd1BHnAgCtXEWvQgJRnQ== X-Received: by 10.98.211.143 with SMTP id z15mr9869003pfk.46.1489007345736; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 13:09:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:9000:d69e:ed9e:f718:c16a:40c9? ([2601:600:9000:d69e:ed9e:f718:c16a:40c9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s21sm7890091pfs.87.2017.03.08.13.09.04 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Mar 2017 13:09:05 -0800 (PST) To: Jonas Schnelli , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: <30362205-D0CC-46D9-B924-EFA0A6EA1AC9@jonasschnelli.ch> From: Eric Voskuil X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N0110 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:09:05 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <30362205-D0CC-46D9-B924-EFA0A6EA1AC9@jonasschnelli.ch> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="fosm0Gs92r9hLRME1SKQhin2jpmGUqDBC" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM 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: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 21:45:34 +0000 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 21:09:06 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --fosm0Gs92r9hLRME1SKQhin2jpmGUqDBC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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). >=20 > Please Eric. Stop spreading FUD. I'm always willing to debate this issue. I'm generally a little suspicious of one who demands another person to stop arguing. I got at least one such demand (along with a threat) on this subject privately last summer from a notable Core dev. There is a lengthy thread on this subject in which I raised these issues. Everyone is free to review that discussion. > BIP150 has a fingerprint-free **OPTIONAL** authentication. It=E2=80=99s= designed > to not reveal any node identifier/identity without first get a > crypto.-proof from other peer that he already knows your identity. > **Peers can=E2=80=99t be identified without having the identity-keys pr= e shared > by the node operators.** The "presharing" of keys is how provable identity works, and is precisely what this new proposal is also promoting. And in response to that, the above statement was made by a Core dev (and not disputed): >>> Nodes are by design not supposed to be identifiable in any way... I'm calling out the obvious relationship between BIP150 and this new proposal. Restating how identity works, or that its use is optional does not refute my position. It's not FUD. e --fosm0Gs92r9hLRME1SKQhin2jpmGUqDBC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYwHLyAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOp7YIAJNk1XiKPNGnXIUFkAFUm3n8 /oQLILCvLLaXWlRy1nNe3jnirBim+/QjYXVaDRyqOLYFWr6htI329a5Obwhq7Y5b drRNcYFfLbGHgpUdLCqvYneCpxvuJeacTp5FwBeTr+Ooo9GopOaNABL4UB2lZve6 meo04s/PgKqYSm6C30RQRkYxVvPUd/PUrUwGgKx+bLeVsFzOpIi/eMCOaUliJjXw W8uNnDmJUgwmsArBjXTitcC5H29prV7cyVhPC9vi/cFEXmgSBb4MdWIIW86NwbkI 4SH4LX4Rn00jKVnCLdEdtyNKgNDQy/FL6Bwgqnyusmwm4TdZLooTac99uJdmbgs= =ICpg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --fosm0Gs92r9hLRME1SKQhin2jpmGUqDBC--