Alfie John [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2016-06-30 📝 Original message:On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2016-06-30
📝 Original message:On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 09:36:57AM -0400, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Encrypting links in a network without identity doesn't really seem to help
> enough for the costs to be justified.
Passive is still better than none.
> I would like to see a PGP-like "web of trust" proposal for both the
> security of the bitcoin network itself /and/ (eventually) of things like
> transmission of bitcoin addresses.
There already exists an unutilised WoT of "good" actors within the network -
miners via the coinbase transaction. Bootstrapping their own "trusted" pool of
IP addresses would be possible via the 100 bytes coinbase script.
> *Then* you can slap an encryption layer on top of it. Once you have
> identity & P2P verified pub keys for nodes, encryption becomes easy.
A miner's WoT will give you this.
Alfie
--
Alfie John
https://www.alfie.wtf
📝 Original message:On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 09:36:57AM -0400, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Encrypting links in a network without identity doesn't really seem to help
> enough for the costs to be justified.
Passive is still better than none.
> I would like to see a PGP-like "web of trust" proposal for both the
> security of the bitcoin network itself /and/ (eventually) of things like
> transmission of bitcoin addresses.
There already exists an unutilised WoT of "good" actors within the network -
miners via the coinbase transaction. Bootstrapping their own "trusted" pool of
IP addresses would be possible via the 100 bytes coinbase script.
> *Then* you can slap an encryption layer on top of it. Once you have
> identity & P2P verified pub keys for nodes, encryption becomes easy.
A miner's WoT will give you this.
Alfie
--
Alfie John
https://www.alfie.wtf