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
|
Return-Path: <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8236089C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:01:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from server3 (server3.include7.ch [144.76.194.38])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E181D164
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:01:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by server3 (Postfix, from userid 115)
id 283532E6010C; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 22:01:53 +0100 (CET)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, FSL_HELO_NON_FQDN_1
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from Jonass-MacBook-Pro.local (cable-static-140-182.teleport.ch
[87.102.140.182]) by server3 (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A64512D0022C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 14 Feb 2017 22:01:52 +0100 (CET)
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <c949a1a2-ca6c-1fa8-6712-0846c5519f66@jonasschnelli.ch>
<1850609.e9N5m2HcLf@strawberry>
From: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>
Message-ID: <302c0b13-1951-faec-7266-f42bf748163d@jonasschnelli.ch>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 22:01:51 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1850609.e9N5m2HcLf@strawberry>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="mClRfs9j73EJUWs9wxXoujcTacX9lWvKn"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP150/151 concerns and some comments
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: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:01:54 -0000
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--mClRfs9j73EJUWs9wxXoujcTacX9lWvKn
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="lq1gxLcAigooCXpBraNK0Is7aD5PoojHK";
protected-headers="v1"
From: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Message-ID: <302c0b13-1951-faec-7266-f42bf748163d@jonasschnelli.ch>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP150/151 concerns and some comments
References: <c949a1a2-ca6c-1fa8-6712-0846c5519f66@jonasschnelli.ch>
<1850609.e9N5m2HcLf@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <1850609.e9N5m2HcLf@strawberry>
--lq1gxLcAigooCXpBraNK0Is7aD5PoojHK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>> - If you use one of the todays available SPV clients, you will reveal
>> your complete wallet content (=E2=80=9E~all your addresses") to every =
network
>> observer between you and the node you have connected to. This means, i=
f
>> you pay for a coffee (while being on the owners WIFI), the coffee owne=
r
>> and all the involved ISPs can correlate your wallet with your other
>> internet behavior. Same is true for your cellphone provider if you use=
>> cellular.
> What about allowing trusted users connecting on a different connection.=
Much=20
> like the RPC one.
> Make that one encrypted. Different usecase, different connection.
>
- What protocol would you use? The same p2p protocol but different port
and/or different process? Why?
- If not the p2p protocol, how would you form a standard? Would it be
worth doing a standard?
- Could you fall back to the current SPV model against random untrusted
peers if you additional channel is not available?
- What are the downsides using current p2p network?
- Would this also solve the security problem of creating designated
channels between peers (the "addnode" thing is based on IPs)?
</jonas>
--lq1gxLcAigooCXpBraNK0Is7aD5PoojHK--
--mClRfs9j73EJUWs9wxXoujcTacX9lWvKn
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=BGY7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--mClRfs9j73EJUWs9wxXoujcTacX9lWvKn--
|
