📅 Original date posted:2014-01-16
📝 Original message:>
> My goal here is not necessarily to hide P2P nodes - we still need lots of
> clearnet P2P nodes for the forseeable future no matter what. Rather we're
> just using hidden services as a way to get authentication and encryption.
> Actually the 6-hop hidden service circuits are overkill for this
> application, a 3-hop circuit would work just as well for most nodes that
> aren't Tor-exclusive.
>
Ah, I see, so you're intending to use the Tor hidden services not for their
original purpose (hiding), but rather as as "authentication" (someone may
spoof my clearnet IP, but only I have the private key that makes this Tor
hidden service connect to me, so you can trust when you connect to it it's
really me). So if you trust the clearnet IP to be a friendly node, that
makes a more secure connection, but if you're already talking to a bad
node, moving the communication to Tor doesn't change that. I agree the
six-hop circuits would be overkill for that; I wonder if the network
slowdown you get on Tor will be worth the increased security? Yes, you'll
be more protected from MITM, but if this is widely adopted, would the
overall transactions/second the Bitcoin network could handle go down?
Brooks
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140115/89df0023/attachment.html>;
Brooks Boyd [ARCHIVE] /
npub12h…vtmxa
2023-06-07 15:12:09
in reply to nevent1q…lwdn
Author Public Key
npub12hzwfhx9ptjf2f0va8qllc0h4tcvz5aaefvlvn9uq8z2ssrq027qtvtmxaPublished at
2023-06-07 15:12:09Event JSON
{
"id": "f62b0e6171a0dcfdf5b0ed34f51b52052e4ca48f154a4450dd85fd214a545533",
"pubkey": "55c4e4dcc50ae49525ece9c1ffe1f7aaf0c153bdca59f64cbc01c4a840607abc",
"created_at": 1686150729,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"611ceaa526b00a1109fcff43c9c84b86475a1a1e055ca0ce884283c7fc0d8b94",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"2a0e756102e0e931a2fffb12b6a39c75a055ce71a77de04357d567dfa68d5043",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-01-16\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e My goal here is not necessarily to hide P2P nodes - we still need lots of\n\u003e clearnet P2P nodes for the forseeable future no matter what. Rather we're\n\u003e just using hidden services as a way to get authentication and encryption.\n\u003e Actually the 6-hop hidden service circuits are overkill for this\n\u003e application, a 3-hop circuit would work just as well for most nodes that\n\u003e aren't Tor-exclusive.\n\u003e\n\nAh, I see, so you're intending to use the Tor hidden services not for their\noriginal purpose (hiding), but rather as as \"authentication\" (someone may\nspoof my clearnet IP, but only I have the private key that makes this Tor\nhidden service connect to me, so you can trust when you connect to it it's\nreally me). So if you trust the clearnet IP to be a friendly node, that\nmakes a more secure connection, but if you're already talking to a bad\nnode, moving the communication to Tor doesn't change that. I agree the\nsix-hop circuits would be overkill for that; I wonder if the network\nslowdown you get on Tor will be worth the increased security? Yes, you'll\nbe more protected from MITM, but if this is widely adopted, would the\noverall transactions/second the Bitcoin network could handle go down?\n\nBrooks\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140115/89df0023/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "5765ee308f8cd99d96c1af654caa13be033e1b0f3eb045252153263ea15cb4eb3a70168d1145c0d60e0d5290768c133196a8417602e518b15118e68b6b3bf6ea"
}