[bitcoin-dev] p2p authentication and encryption BIPs
macwhyte at gmail.com
Sat Mar 26 23:23:54 UTC 2016
On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 1:34 AM Tom via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Friday 25 Mar 2016 19:43:00 Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > An encrypted channel together with a trusted full node would finally
> > allow to have a secure and save SPV communication.
> I guess my question didn't get across.
> Why would you want to make your usecase do connections over the peer2peer
> (net.cpp) connection at all?
> Mixing messages that are being sent to everyone and encrypted messages is
> asking for trouble.
> Making your private connection out-of-band would work much better.
I agree doing it out-of-band is the easiest solution for people who need
this privacy right now, but I do like the idea of adding this feature as
the number of SPV wallets is going to increase. I think the best way to
organize things would be to give encrypted messages their own port number,
similar to how http vs. https works.
We don't want two networks to develop, separated by which nodes support
encryption and which don't, so ideally nodes would rebroadcast messages
they receive on both (encrypted and non-encrypted) channels. This would
essentially double the required bandwidth of the network, which is
something to think about.
> > > Also, you didn't actually address the attack-vector.
> > Which attack-vector?
> The statistical attack I mentioned earlier. Which comes from knowing which
> plain text messages are being sent over the encrypted channel, So as long
> you keep saying you want to encrypt data that identical copies of are being
> sent to other nodes at practically the same time, you will keep being
> vulnerable to that.
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitcoin-dev