📅 Original date posted:2014-11-27
📝 Original message:>
> [As an aside I agree that there are lots of things to improve here,
> but the fact that users can in theory be forced off of tor via DOS
> attacks is not immediately concerning to me because its a conscious
> choice users would make to abandon their privacy
Bitcoin already has a large population of users who have little or no
technical skill, it wouldn't surprise me at all if it was found to be the
clear majority by now. Assuming success and growth in future, very few
users will make any decisions at all about their privacy, they will just
accept the defaults. In such a world no consumer wallet is going to
directly expose Tor to end users - if used at all it'll just be used behind
the scenes. So automated fallback or control over exits would be a concern
for such wallets.
My gut feeling about this stuff has changed over time. I don't think it'd
be a great idea to tie Bitcoin to Tor too deeply, convenient though its
infrastructure is. Most apps don't need a whole lot of onion routing - a
small amount built in to the p2p layer would be sufficient. Tor is huge,
complicated and could be a liability in future.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20141127/506b3fb5/attachment.html>;
Mike Hearn [ARCHIVE] /
npub17t…4qgyd
2023-06-07 17:27:34
in reply to nevent1q…z6wa
Author Public Key
npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 17:27:34Event JSON
{
"id": "7ebef3cd72cbb2b3e29ca4feb5e31d84d81d42541fe082a3d56eb8f638bd3497",
"pubkey": "f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2",
"created_at": 1686151654,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"361488dab143c9c8ffe7e1b6278eb4c26a4e028aa93b779a32013ddcda18317a",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"519f0255204e28550a20eb8251ad8b24aca5d2bbd712f9319f0cd8f194cbbf7f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-11-27\n📝 Original message:\u003e\n\u003e [As an aside I agree that there are lots of things to improve here,\n\u003e but the fact that users can in theory be forced off of tor via DOS\n\u003e attacks is not immediately concerning to me because its a conscious\n\u003e choice users would make to abandon their privacy\n\n\nBitcoin already has a large population of users who have little or no\ntechnical skill, it wouldn't surprise me at all if it was found to be the\nclear majority by now. Assuming success and growth in future, very few\nusers will make any decisions at all about their privacy, they will just\naccept the defaults. In such a world no consumer wallet is going to\ndirectly expose Tor to end users - if used at all it'll just be used behind\nthe scenes. So automated fallback or control over exits would be a concern\nfor such wallets.\n\nMy gut feeling about this stuff has changed over time. I don't think it'd\nbe a great idea to tie Bitcoin to Tor too deeply, convenient though its\ninfrastructure is. Most apps don't need a whole lot of onion routing - a\nsmall amount built in to the p2p layer would be sufficient. Tor is huge,\ncomplicated and could be a liability in future.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20141127/506b3fb5/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "381f88f5d49e6a83d9a3c5450d25653802365939d1b025bf21c9cb4dd6f3e073403a0a5ee7109c022d1838865c9353380a26ae620e0d3008f07d6f62555227f3"
}