Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:06:13 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
Message-ID: <20160630190613.GA6758@fedora-21-dvm>
References: <577234A4.3030808@jonasschnelli.ch>
	<360EF9B8-A174-41CA-AFDD-2BC2C0B4DECB@voskuil.org>
	<20160629111728.GO13338@dosf1.alfie.wtf>
	<2981A919-4550-4807-8ED9-F8C51B2DC061@voskuil.org>
	<57750EAB.3020105@jonasschnelli.ch>
	<426C2AA3-BFB8-4C41-B4DF-4D6CC11988B2@voskuil.org>
	<577513DB.60101@jonasschnelli.ch>
	<F4BDD091-FD80-4EE9-93EF-735B6BBE253C@voskuil.org>
	<20160630165227.GA5816@fedora-21-dvm>
	<663B51FE-D8D5-4570-ACA6-D1405D98C773@voskuil.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="yrj/dFKFPuw6o+aM"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <663B51FE-D8D5-4570-ACA6-D1405D98C773@voskuil.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 151
Precedence: list


--yrj/dFKFPuw6o+aM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 08:25:45PM +0200, Eric Voskuil wrote:
> > To be clear, are you against Bitcoin Core's tor support?
> >=20
> > Because node-to-node connections over tor are encrypted, and make use o=
f onion
> > addresses, which are self-authenticated in the exact same way as BIP151=
 proposes.
>=20
> BIP151 is self-admittedly insufficient to protect against a MITM attack. =
It proposes node identity to close this hole (future BIP required). The yet=
-to-be-specified requirement for node identity is the basis of my primary c=
oncern. This is not self-authentication.
>=20
> > And we're shipping that in production as of 0.12.0, and by default Tor =
onion support is enabled and will be automatically setup if you have a rece=
nt version of Tor installed.
> >=20
> > Does that "create pressure to expand node identity"?
>=20
> The orthogonal question of whether Tor is safe for use with the Bitcoin P=
2P protocol is a matter of existing research.

I don't think you answered my question.

Again, we _already have_ the equivalent of BIP151 functionality in Bitcoin
Core, shipping in production, but implemented with a Tor dependency.

BIP151 removes that dependency on Tor, enabling encrypted connections
regardless of whether or not you have Tor installed.

So any arguments against BIP151 being implemented, are equally arguments
against our existing Tor onion support. Are you against that support? Becau=
se
if you aren't, you can't have any objections to BIP151 being implemented
either.

--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

--yrj/dFKFPuw6o+aM
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXdW2iAAoJEGOZARBE6K+y0b4H/Ate3MT9sQPjK+e/H8zWs1pr
Pkrll3ppDjkiz2VoABJ9hIw8jR0GoZkeXsO2RYNcI1u9M7MDScNO5+TK87815TKX
2xVIE9tkOLix6xndbtbnw+2cbwmz2IatLQQ7MHzoj9W5Qa0gYSouX6i3eq9+7emm
JR2RQd3w6g6hGZC41UdlUMrBx5eUdn8gxPFgt+Z5tdJpF0V94k4HotGgXikDl01r
DGxGpO0ob6MlrsCDYi9VMbkPPkxSLrJfRCIkfnl8/DrcWoUWaFfK3LLx3845J4bs
AFdbZpw01joRbRJNkEo8ipC96EVjMjxC5v67yYjcX/+dkCiKMbIvxWXaMq7h5j8=
=nAS8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--yrj/dFKFPuw6o+aM--