Troy Benjegerdes [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-08-23 📝 Original message:On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2014-08-23
📝 Original message:On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 04:50:30PM +0000, Justus Ranvier wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 08/23/2014 04:17 PM, xor wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 07:40:39 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >> Encryption is of little value if you may deduce the same
> >> information by observing packet sizes and timings.
> >
> > Instead of spawning a discussion whether this aspect is a reason to
> > NOT encrypt, you should do the obvious:
> >
> > Fix that as well. X being broken is not a reason for not fixing Y.
> > Pad the then encrypted packets with random bytes. The fact that
> > they are encrypted makes them look like random data already, so the
> > padding will not be distinguishable from the rest. Also, add some
> > random bias to their timing.
>
> The packet size and timing issue will become less of an issue as the
> network grows anyway.
>
> One transaction inserted into a 3 transaction-per-second encrypted
> stream is more obvious than the same transaction inserted into a 100
> or 1000 TPS stream.
The requirement for anonymity and privacy is lawyers and a Bitlicense.
If you want privacy and anonymity, then do high-frequency trading on
a centralized exchange, and if you want to go over-the-top, run some
arbitrage bots as well, and hide in the millions of transactions per
second that go on.
But make sure you get a Bitlicense and have a good securities lawyer.
Trying to solve a legal/legislative/social problem with more crypto is
only going to serve the people who created the legal/legislative/social
problem in the first place, because they can hire a hacker who will
find a misplaced (} in your crypto code, and all the work you did to
encrypt wire protocols becomes silently worthless.
📝 Original message:On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 04:50:30PM +0000, Justus Ranvier wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 08/23/2014 04:17 PM, xor wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 07:40:39 PM Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >> Encryption is of little value if you may deduce the same
> >> information by observing packet sizes and timings.
> >
> > Instead of spawning a discussion whether this aspect is a reason to
> > NOT encrypt, you should do the obvious:
> >
> > Fix that as well. X being broken is not a reason for not fixing Y.
> > Pad the then encrypted packets with random bytes. The fact that
> > they are encrypted makes them look like random data already, so the
> > padding will not be distinguishable from the rest. Also, add some
> > random bias to their timing.
>
> The packet size and timing issue will become less of an issue as the
> network grows anyway.
>
> One transaction inserted into a 3 transaction-per-second encrypted
> stream is more obvious than the same transaction inserted into a 100
> or 1000 TPS stream.
The requirement for anonymity and privacy is lawyers and a Bitlicense.
If you want privacy and anonymity, then do high-frequency trading on
a centralized exchange, and if you want to go over-the-top, run some
arbitrage bots as well, and hide in the millions of transactions per
second that go on.
But make sure you get a Bitlicense and have a good securities lawyer.
Trying to solve a legal/legislative/social problem with more crypto is
only going to serve the people who created the legal/legislative/social
problem in the first place, because they can hire a hacker who will
find a misplaced (} in your crypto code, and all the work you did to
encrypt wire protocols becomes silently worthless.