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.
And besides: It would be nice if everyone could acknowledge that making
Bitcoin as anonymous as possible is a natural desire. People demanding you to
do this is bound to happen over and over again until you do it :) So just get
on with it instead of postponing it due to doubts.
There is Tor, there is Freenet, and there are other anonymous P2P networks,
and they can help you do get it done - the said problems have been well-known
there for quite some time and people have thought about how to solve them.
Greetings,
xor, a developer of https://freenetproject.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
