Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC71BC0012 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 13:17:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4AA0421BF for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 13:17:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NoQk2_x0Tm3S for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 13:17:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:30:07 by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from 2.mo552.mail-out.ovh.net (2.mo552.mail-out.ovh.net [178.33.105.233]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9094D421BD for ; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 13:17:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mxplan6.mail.ovh.net (unknown [10.108.20.55]) by mo552.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BA3B22E8A; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 12:40:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from peersm.com (37.59.142.105) by DAG6EX1.mxp6.local (172.16.2.51) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2375.17; Mon, 13 Dec 2021 13:40:50 +0100 Authentication-Results: garm.ovh; auth=pass (GARM-105G00618b28c72-cb7c-403e-b16a-cd90d8993fa9, E5D1569A86B6CA2C96D54010462A08A8BE481A6F) smtp.auth=aymeric@peersm.com X-OVh-ClientIp: 92.184.100.56 To: Pieter Wuille , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Prayank References: <1fbf0ef8b1b42979361b5df0b09c2dcd@willtech.com.au> <86d49c80-2f8f-245c-5fdb-17c6ca6b5f2b@peersm.com> <10dcd9a9-0c39-7f4f-acde-04912a32e103@peersm.com> From: Aymeric Vitte Message-ID: <6341eec0-e6d8-fe15-4fde-b98d87b00c92@peersm.com> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 13:40:51 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-IP: [37.59.142.105] X-ClientProxiedBy: DAG4EX2.mxp6.local (172.16.2.32) To DAG6EX1.mxp6.local (172.16.2.51) X-Ovh-Tracer-GUID: 54c24d42-7e95-4345-9ef4-e9a552241709 X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 4562990851737215965 X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: 0 X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvuddrkeekgdegfecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfqggfjpdevjffgvefmvefgnecuuegrihhlohhuthemucehtddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfhisehtqhertddtfeehnecuhfhrohhmpeethihmvghrihgtucggihhtthgvuceorgihmhgvrhhitgesphgvvghrshhmrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeukeehhffhfeehtdegveeijeevvddvieevheffkeelteevfeetieejtdehfefgveenucffohhmrghinhepphgvvghrshhmrdgtohhmnecukfhppedtrddtrddtrddtpdefjedrheelrddugedvrddutdehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmohguvgepshhmthhpohhuthdphhgvlhhopehmgihplhgrnheirdhmrghilhdrohhvhhdrnhgvthdpihhnvghtpedtrddtrddtrddtpdhmrghilhhfrhhomheprgihmhgvrhhitgesphgvvghrshhmrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepsghithgtohhinhdquggvvhesfihuihhllhgvrdhnvght X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 13:46:14 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Rebroadcast mechanism in Bitcoin P2P network X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 13:17:21 -0000 > It's just one example of a downside of (a particular way of) using > Tor. That doesn't mean I recommend against using Tor for Bitcoin > traffic at all; my point was simply that there are trade-offs, and > aspects of privacy of the P2P protocol that Tor does not address, and > thus one shouldn't assume that all problems are solved by "just use Tor= ". There are many downsides since the default behavior of the Tor network does not apply to p2p networks, another example is a bitcoin node exiting transactions (I thought you were referring to this), since the same Tor circuit is used during some time most likely the transactions are related to the same node even if we don't know its IP According to the bitcoin github example discussion link I gave, I am not saying that Tor network nodes should not be used, I am saying that they should be used =E0 la node-Tor, or more precisely like the github example= and http://www.peersm.com/Convergence-2020.pdf, one of the main differences are how behave the first node (ie the originating bitcoin node), HS/RDV, nb of hops, hybrid nodes Another drawback is that bitcoin community lets bitcoin nodes operators play the way they like with torrc @Prayank, regarding js/webrtc my previous answer was not partial, please email in private if you need more, it's just a part of the project (but important since disruptive), which is already advertised widely (bitcoin, ipfs, covid apps, videoconf, etc, there are plenty of links on github, lists, specs discussion, probably I should reference them), the answer is always the same: "very interesting, go ahead", but no, it is designed to be integrated by the projects, not by myself, and the only thing missing to get rid of myself is to release phase4