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
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1W6pyl-0001ZA-Hq
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 24 Jan 2014 23:16:03 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.219.42 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.219.42; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-oa0-f42.google.com;
Received: from mail-oa0-f42.google.com ([209.85.219.42])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1W6pyj-0008PD-Qv
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 24 Jan 2014 23:16:03 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id i7so4505476oag.15
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 24 Jan 2014 15:15:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.157.114 with SMTP id wl18mr4094462obb.52.1390605356412;
Fri, 24 Jan 2014 15:15:56 -0800 (PST)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.99.112 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 15:15:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <9C11B575-1C43-44BB-B5C2-52F892E5A35A@taplink.co>
References: <CAAS2fgQmsxjkQFSiCdeMoVMaqq5720KpUpdkKZOE+XytHsWw0w@mail.gmail.com>
<20140124090218.GA15398@savin>
<CANEZrP0MnXr4xjaMPg7v7vTiDQr-y7esvEBE=xk=Y0BUGXak9A@mail.gmail.com>
<20140124152617.GA31017@petertodd.org>
<9C11B575-1C43-44BB-B5C2-52F892E5A35A@taplink.co>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 00:15:56 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: oaVrYaKxijarusOXHxf2Rvabs5g
Message-ID: <CANEZrP1tjeRgZf7nCUjPM-eLTrNkLEA3syZRy4UqmEhNKyZwhw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Jeremy Spilman <jeremy@taplink.co>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d041828304ab65004f0bf8a7a
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1W6pyj-0008PD-Qv
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bait for reusable addresses
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 23:16:03 -0000
--f46d041828304ab65004f0bf8a7a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I've thought about [ab]using Tor as a STUN replacement before, but the
issue is a lot of people don't have computers that are switched on all the
time anymore except for their smartphones, which are too weak to calculate
the UTXO set. The trend has been for a while towards laptops, phones and
tablets, all of which are relatively weak.
I think there might be a market for a one-click "bring up an amazon VPS,
sync a full node and make it accessible only to me" type service though!
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Jeremy Spilman <jeremy@taplink.co> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we need to provide users with better options than that.
> >
>
> Perfect privacy without extraordinary computational overhead today means
> downloading everything. But we could provide better tools to *shift*
> bandwidth requirements rather than try to reduce them.
>
> I've been thinking about a setup where user runs a UTXO only, and maybe
> even outbound-connect only (like bitcoinj), full node at home. Then using
> Tor, mostly for tunneling, they host a hidden service they can connect back
> to from their smartphone to see balances, manage receive addresses, send
> funds, etc.
>
> The smartphone is not doing SPV, it's like a web client for the wallet
> running at home. The initial connection between the smartphone and home
> wallet has the phone learn two codes, one is the hidden service name,
> another is an access token which is revocable. You may require further
> authentication from that point.
>
> With fast bootstrapping / checkpointing of the UTXO I think usability
> could be as good as SPV, and you would get push-notification of relevant
> transactions with zero privacy trade-off.
>
> I wonder if people would want to run such an app, if they would run it on
> their desktop, a dedicated machine, or an old smartphone or other cheap ARM
> device.
>
--f46d041828304ab65004f0bf8a7a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">I've thought about [ab]using Tor as a STUN replacement=
before, but the issue is a lot of people don't have computers that are=
switched on all the time anymore except for their smartphones, which are t=
oo weak to calculate the UTXO set. The trend has been for a while towards l=
aptops, phones and tablets, all of which are relatively weak.<div>
<br></div><div>I think there might be a market for a one-click "bring =
up an amazon VPS, sync a full node and make it accessible only to me" =
type service though!</div><div><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Jeremy=
Spilman <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:jeremy@taplink.co" target=
=3D"_blank">jeremy@taplink.co</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D=
"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding=
-left:1ex">
<div class=3D"im">><br>
><br>
><br>
> I think we need to provide users with better options than that.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>Perfect privacy without extraordinary computational overhead today me=
ans downloading everything. But we could provide better tools to *shift* ba=
ndwidth requirements rather than try to reduce them.<br>
<br>
I've been thinking about a setup where user runs a UTXO only, and maybe=
even outbound-connect only (like bitcoinj), full node at home. Then using =
Tor, mostly for tunneling, they host a hidden service they can connect back=
to from their smartphone to see balances, manage receive addresses, send f=
unds, etc.<br>
<br>
The smartphone is not doing SPV, it's like a web client for the wallet =
running at home. The initial connection between the smartphone and home wal=
let has the phone learn two codes, one is the hidden service name, another =
is an access token which is revocable. You may require further authenticati=
on from that point.<br>
<br>
With fast bootstrapping / checkpointing of the UTXO I think usability could=
be as good as SPV, and you would get push-notification of relevant transac=
tions with zero privacy trade-off.<br>
<br>
I wonder if people would want to run such an app, if they would run it on t=
heir desktop, a dedicated machine, or an old smartphone or other cheap ARM =
device.<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--f46d041828304ab65004f0bf8a7a--
|
