Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Reposting this response since this made it neither to distribution nor to the moderation archive. - Forwarded Message Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 18:59:42 -0800 From: Eric Voskuil &l

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers

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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Eric Voskuil 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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers

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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers (and BIP150)

On Wednesday, 8 March 2017 20:47:54 CET Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Please Eric. Stop spreading FUD. > BIP150 has a fingerprint-free **OPTIONAL** authentication. It’s designed > to not reveal any node identifier/identity without first get a > crypto.-proof from other peer that he

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers

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“). > > Please Eric. Stop spreading FUD. I'm always willing to debate this issue.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers (and BIP150)

Hi Tom > Do you know the trick of having an open wifi basestation in a public street > and how that can lead to tracking? Especially if you have a network of them. > The trick is this; you set up an open wifi base station with a hidden ssid > and phones try to connect to it by saying “Are you

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers

> 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“). >>

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers

> >> >> > 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“). Please Eric. Stop spreading FUD. BIP150 has a fingerprint-free **OPTIONAL** authentication. It’s designed to not

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers

l.com> SENT: Sunday, March 5, 2017 1:27 PM TO: John Hardy; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion SUBJECT: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers Nodes are by design not supposed to be identifiable in any way, including persisting identities across IPs changes or when connecting over different netwo

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers

t; convinced otherwise. Bitcoin does not require node counts, and this proposal is redundant with BIP150. e > > From: Btc Drak <btcd...@gmail.com> > Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2017 1:27 PM > To: John Hardy; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion > Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique nod

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers

n Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers Nodes are by design not supposed to be identifiable in any way, including persisting identities across IPs changes or when connecting over different networks (e.g. clearnet/tor). Anything that makes Bitcoin less private is a step backwards. Also

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers

Nodes are by design not supposed to be identifiable in any way, including persisting identities across IPs changes or when connecting over different networks (e.g. clearnet/tor). Anything that makes Bitcoin less private is a step backwards. Also absolute node count is pretty meaningless since only

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers

outing? From: Marcel Jamin <mar...@jamin.net> Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2017 6:29 AM To: John Hardy; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers > This could even come in the form of a Bitcoin address. Wouldn't this

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Unique node identifiers

> This could even come in the form of a Bitcoin address. Wouldn't this actually *need* to be a bitcoin address that is included in a block to get any real assurances about the age if this node id? Otherwise malicous nodes could lie and claim to have seen a brand new node id years ago already.