On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 9:23:10 AM UTC-5, Jameson Lopp wrote: > > The PR in question: https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/pull/1408 > > Probably worth noting that Andreas is employed by Bloq... > http://bloq.com/bloq-expands-team-and-announces-board-of-advisors.html > <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fbloq.com%2Fbloq-expands-team-and-announces-board-of-advisors.html&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH1H-dZbuuvTnuQaUjCf60fvaEv-w> > > Regarding the privacy issue: perhaps, though there's no guarantee that > other seed nodes aren't also keeping some sort of information for > analytics. If you really care about network privacy then your BitcoinJ apps > should only be connecting to full nodes that you (or your users) control. > > I suspect the answer regarding SegWit2X is that from BitcoinJ's point of > view it will follow whatever chain has the most cumulative proof of work > and isn't concerned about replay protection issues. Thus BitcoinJ would > want to be as well-connected as possible. > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 4:59 AM, <quantu...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> I was recently made aware on Twitter than Bitcoinj updated its DNS seed >> node list to include Jeff Garzik's and Bloq's nodes. I would like to know >> why these were added, and why other 2x seed nodes were not. This bothers me >> both because of the(though a leap to a degree) concerns over Bloq's >> investment in Skry and acquiring its analytics software and techniques, and >> the fact that these seed nodes are running BTC1. >> >> This creates two problems in my mind. 1) It opens up all users of wallets >> basing off your version of Bitcoinj to be tagged and identified on a >> network level by a company that has directly invested in chain analytics >> company. This is a huge privacy risk for users. It also opens up the >> potential to be compromised in terms of the Bitcoin network as well as the >> seed nodes would decide what nodes to pass the new wallet off to. >> >> Which leads me to my next issue. These new seed nodes operating BTC1 >> creates a huge systemic risk for users in the event the NY Agreement is >> fulfilled and there is a fork in November. These new DNS seed additions >> could be guaranteeing wallets are connected to both network post-fork and >> cause unpredicted/detrimental behavior for users. >> >> I would ask that these additions be removed, and would like to know why >> they were added in the first place, as they introduce two different risk >> surfaces for your userbase that would not exist without them. >> >> Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "bitcoinj" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to bitcoinj+u...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > Well I would like to hear the rationale from the Bitcoinj developers, who still have not responded. But, despite being a leap as I said myself, I think the issue of privacy is more pressing comparing a company with analytics investments nodes versus developers personal seed nodes. As well, I think it is absolutely in no way a wallet developer's place to make a decision such as "The longest POW chain regardless of validity or rules is Bitcoin" on behalf of their users. That choice should be left with the users, not made by the developers.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bitcoinj" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoinj+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
