1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
|
Return-Path: <alfie@alfie.wtf>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3237E990
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:47:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from dosf1.alfie.wtf (dosf1.alfie.wtf [104.236.177.69])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFCB6209
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:47:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dosf1.alfie.wtf (Postfix, from userid 0)
id 87D40615A3; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:47:34 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:47:34 +0000
From: Alfie John <alfie@alfie.wtf>
To: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20160630144734.GR13338@dosf1.alfie.wtf>
References: <87h9cecad5.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
<1E86A00F-0609-4DBC-9543-94AE04CC13C9@voskuil.org>
<577234A4.3030808@jonasschnelli.ch>
<CAAS2fgQFqHBdbym4GMAV-mdcEWR1SdGc3av0mDu65keKP9Ak6g@mail.gmail.com>
<AB9C1C8F-7369-42CC-8551-7E03B16D5229@voskuil.org>
<CAAS2fgT4V72vj17qTLu7pz5EQ60bqnggeDnTP5ASdwYxpuNpWw@mail.gmail.com>
<CB6D8DF2-3EB7-4A12-8861-494D1DBC3D93@voskuil.org>
<CAJowKg+tOoEEeVh2sh3oZbnJ3dO_h4n9eBaUeZ+ys2RPD+s2vQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJowKg+tOoEEeVh2sh3oZbnJ3dO_h4n9eBaUeZ+ys2RPD+s2vQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 151
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:47:35 -0000
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 09:36:57AM -0400, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Encrypting links in a network without identity doesn't really seem to help
> enough for the costs to be justified.
Passive is still better than none.
> I would like to see a PGP-like "web of trust" proposal for both the
> security of the bitcoin network itself /and/ (eventually) of things like
> transmission of bitcoin addresses.
There already exists an unutilised WoT of "good" actors within the network -
miners via the coinbase transaction. Bootstrapping their own "trusted" pool of
IP addresses would be possible via the 100 bytes coinbase script.
> *Then* you can slap an encryption layer on top of it. Once you have
> identity & P2P verified pub keys for nodes, encryption becomes easy.
A miner's WoT will give you this.
Alfie
--
Alfie John
https://www.alfie.wtf
|
