š
Original date posted:2014-08-19
š Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 19 August 2014 21:19:43 GMT-04:00, William Yager <will.yager at gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
>> In any case, my suggestion of enabling hidden service support by
>default
>> adds both encryption and reasonably good authentication.
>
>
>Enabling hidden service support by default would introduce an insanely
>huge
>attack surface.
Hence my suggestion of separating that surface by using the standalone Tor binary, which runs under a different user to the Bitcoin Core binary.
>And you're conflating two different things; using Tor is valuable to
>Bitcoin because it would provide some anonymity. The encryption aspect
>is
>pretty much useless for us.
First of all, without encryption we're leaking significant amounts of information to any passive attacker trying to trace the origin of Bitcoin transactions, a significant privacy risk.
Secondly the upcoming v0.10's fee estimation implementation is quite vulnerable to Sybil attacks. Authentication and encryption are needed to make it secure from ISP-level targeting to ensure that your view of the network is representative. Tor support used in parallel with native connection is ideal here, as neither the Tor network nor your ISP alone can Sybil attack you. It's notable that Bitcoinj has already implemented Tor support for these same reasons.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: APG v1.1.1
iQFQBAEBCAA6BQJT8/mSMxxQZXRlciBUb2RkIChsb3cgc2VjdXJpdHkga2V5KSA8
cGV0ZUBwZXRlcnRvZGQub3JnPgAKCRAZnIM7qOfwhRZjCAC4PSpQ68qgtFMR77xf
zXZLr/iMKX6yyJwXRj+vGi+0Ng/sv9NlYjYnDeflom37WlpGo/sCOFcVWImhnS2d
kUFoUH92iXwRuEt/SN/LrHghkLWOxtVu9wa49eS/piGZFF3JWllk82MgdBZ6vjNw
B6WuInEIurK+h8rUbAi2HjFkxVN0K0SsrFt/P0tHj10ABcMealBRoJh2Jx7fLNdS
uTKddqeLyThEpLGNti3k+lhwQ2dA5RUBq6q3GUS/hWvTHRnU+viGMJSYv62LXRN5
t87BXRY/R9UBpnudf3TIlPtOuIWcv2LhlXVjvbDDQqwJkvB3Qf4ejE3RZ28S5IUr
OBQH
=Gy7X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2ā¦a2np2
2023-06-07 15:25:23
in reply to nevent1qā¦80fv
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 15:25:23Event JSON
{
"id": "702dc204a41d96c4c2f681baacd5138f161231619fa812453d7621b2b909102a",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686151523,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f7d80207f3f3e09247c97d3e8c17b8e8b9ffc855be5e4ac09f019815084b2528",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"02f99e17c3ed5ea86f9d55c03f9cf7f0c3511a5f736f244772e45c4381532a49",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"dac5021a7b00b2588f37695f479d6d47ad5dbacbb4f6beec1ddd295ae976e83c"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2014-08-19\nš Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA256\n\n\n\nOn 19 August 2014 21:19:43 GMT-04:00, William Yager \u003cwill.yager at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003eOn Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e In any case, my suggestion of enabling hidden service support by\n\u003edefault\n\u003e\u003e adds both encryption and reasonably good authentication.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003eEnabling hidden service support by default would introduce an insanely\n\u003ehuge\n\u003eattack surface.\n\nHence my suggestion of separating that surface by using the standalone Tor binary, which runs under a different user to the Bitcoin Core binary.\n\n\u003eAnd you're conflating two different things; using Tor is valuable to\n\u003eBitcoin because it would provide some anonymity. The encryption aspect\n\u003eis\n\u003epretty much useless for us.\n\nFirst of all, without encryption we're leaking significant amounts of information to any passive attacker trying to trace the origin of Bitcoin transactions, a significant privacy risk.\n\nSecondly the upcoming v0.10's fee estimation implementation is quite vulnerable to Sybil attacks. Authentication and encryption are needed to make it secure from ISP-level targeting to ensure that your view of the network is representative. Tor support used in parallel with native connection is ideal here, as neither the Tor network nor your ISP alone can Sybil attack you. It's notable that Bitcoinj has already implemented Tor support for these same reasons.\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: APG v1.1.1\n\niQFQBAEBCAA6BQJT8/mSMxxQZXRlciBUb2RkIChsb3cgc2VjdXJpdHkga2V5KSA8\ncGV0ZUBwZXRlcnRvZGQub3JnPgAKCRAZnIM7qOfwhRZjCAC4PSpQ68qgtFMR77xf\nzXZLr/iMKX6yyJwXRj+vGi+0Ng/sv9NlYjYnDeflom37WlpGo/sCOFcVWImhnS2d\nkUFoUH92iXwRuEt/SN/LrHghkLWOxtVu9wa49eS/piGZFF3JWllk82MgdBZ6vjNw\nB6WuInEIurK+h8rUbAi2HjFkxVN0K0SsrFt/P0tHj10ABcMealBRoJh2Jx7fLNdS\nuTKddqeLyThEpLGNti3k+lhwQ2dA5RUBq6q3GUS/hWvTHRnU+viGMJSYv62LXRN5\nt87BXRY/R9UBpnudf3TIlPtOuIWcv2LhlXVjvbDDQqwJkvB3Qf4ejE3RZ28S5IUr\nOBQH\n=Gy7X\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----",
"sig": "556802bfedf597923b8fdd8ef5ac0c99efa461fd5efa346bfe71ba3118c7e71660dc5bd619152f74ba12882d797f0a60a9bd67058ee161daedcf0daef61f9142"
}