📅 Original date posted:2020-08-24 📝 Original message:On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at ...

Jeremy [ARCHIVE] /

npub1q86…qwta

2023-06-07 18:26:31

in reply to nevent1q…az6f

📅 Original date posted:2020-08-24
📝 Original message:On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 1:17 PM Eric Voskuil <eric at voskuil.org> wrote:

> I said security, not privacy. You are in fact exposing the feature to any
> node that wants to negotiate for it. if you don’t want to expose the buggy
> feature, then disable it. Otherwise you cannot prevent peers from accessing
> it. Presumably peers prefer the new feature if they support it, so there is
> no need for this complexity.
>
>
>
I interpreted* " This seems to imply a security benefit (I can’t discern
any other rationale for this complexity). It should be clear that this is
no more than trivially weak obfuscation and not worth complicating the
protocol to achieve.", *to be about obfuscation and therefore privacy.

The functionality that I'm mentioning might not be buggy, it might just not
support peers who don't support another feature. You can always disconnect
a peer who sends a message that you didn't handshake on (or maybe we should
elbow bump given the times).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20200824/27b10d97/attachment.html>;

Author Public Key

npub1q86n5vtxkwerzwfqza3hwls8pl8764244464talfqy2vpj0qaz6q38qwta

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 18:26:31

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "4b133fc8a896510bcece189ebf4a99ec69c6fb7f6701916ce29197f4f4e0fa76", "pubkey": "01f53a3166b3b23139201763777e070fcfed5555ad7555f7e90114c0c9e0e8b4", "created_at": 1686162391, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "43edfd73733fa9cb455dfd9022ab700e39020c27283a7e2f0343a8c6fb631001", "", "root" ], [ "e", "74e6cd376c4775d542e544a8889c89ca25bbe2c5e873d1a0ea3c4f8e812506ee", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "82205f272f995d9be742779a3c19a2ae08522ca14824c3a3b01525fb5459161e" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2020-08-24\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 1:17 PM Eric Voskuil \u003ceric at voskuil.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e I said security, not privacy. You are in fact exposing the feature to any\n\u003e node that wants to negotiate for it. if you don’t want to expose the buggy\n\u003e feature, then disable it. Otherwise you cannot prevent peers from accessing\n\u003e it. Presumably peers prefer the new feature if they support it, so there is\n\u003e no need for this complexity.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\nI interpreted* \" This seems to imply a security benefit (I can’t discern\nany other rationale for this complexity). It should be clear that this is\nno more than trivially weak obfuscation and not worth complicating the\nprotocol to achieve.\", *to be about obfuscation and therefore privacy.\n\nThe functionality that I'm mentioning might not be buggy, it might just not\nsupport peers who don't support another feature. You can always disconnect\na peer who sends a message that you didn't handshake on (or maybe we should\nelbow bump given the times).\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20200824/27b10d97/attachment.html\u003e", "sig": "677b4731b7c0d39bc2504459828a5214694ece845b87fa9cc4f530587130608cffa1f9f5ab018396b2ef13b822f213b306a68fb3da0ebcf5162ddf3d79dac6de" }