As stated in this thread and as I see it the use of BIP150 is optional,
so if some parties want to trust each others and use it, then they can,
if they don't like it and don't want to use it, then they don't use it
Unless I misread, some statements in this thread involving the Tor
network are wrong, the Tor network is a centralized network, each node
(except the bridges) have a long term identity key and have to prove
periodically to the authority servers that they are the owners of this
key, if not the other nodes will never extend circuits to them, then
they will be of course quite difficult to reach
Unfortunately the original proposal starting this thread seems to be
reinventing this system that probably can only lead to something
centralized which cannot apply for the bitcoin network (the Tor network
is centralized because the team want to control what is happening:
sybils, bugs, attacks, blacklist etc)
Unless some peers/nodes have decided to trust each others (BIP150) I
don't think it's a good idea at all that bitcoin nodes have anything
similar to long term nodeIDs (see
https://gist.github.com/Ayms/aab6f8e08fef0792ab3448f542a826bf , already
posted, not final, not finished, and the title does not really reflect
what would be the proposal today, but it carefully avoids any
possibility for a full node to have a long term ID)
Le 09/03/2017 à 02:55, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev a écrit :
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Eric Voskuil <e...@voskuil.org> wrote:
On 03/08/2017 03:12 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote:
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).
Weak identity is insufficient to produce the problem scenario that is at
the heart of my concern (excluding people). It is this "[same] except
more secure" distinction that is the problem. You brush past that as if
it did not exist.
So you're saying that a -onlyacceptconnectionsfrom=IP option wouldn't
be a concern to you because it can't exclude people? Of course it can
exclude people - just not your ISP or a state-level attacker.
Please, Eric. I think I understand your concern, but this argument
isn't constructive either.
The proposal here is to introduce visible node identities on the
network. I think that's misguided as node count is irrelevant and
trivial to fake anyway. But you bringing up BIP150 here isn't useful
either. I know that you equate the concept of having verifiable
identity keys in the P2P with a step towards making every node
identifiable, but they are not the same. It's just a cryptographic
tool to keep a certain class of attackers from bypassing restrictions
that people can already make.
--
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
