Author: James MacWhyte 2016-03-27 17:04:30
Published on: 2016-03-27T17:04:30+00:00
The conversation on the bitcoin-dev mailing list revolves around the encryption feature for SPV wallets. The discussion began with an opinion that out-of-band communication would work better than using peer-to-peer (net.cpp) connections for sending encrypted messages. However, some participants believe that adding this feature is necessary given the increasing number of SPV wallets. One suggestion was to give encrypted messages their own port number, similar to how http vs. https works. However, there were doubts about whether different ports would make sense and how it would affect p2p address management. It was also assumed that clients connecting with encryption would not want to use unencrypted connections. To solve this issue, using port numbers can help assume that any connection that comes on the encrypted port is only interested in encrypted communication. The concern was raised about not wanting two networks to develop, separated by which nodes support encryption and which don't. To avoid this situation, ideally, nodes should rebroadcast messages they receive on both the encrypted and non-encrypted channels. However, this approach would require double the required bandwidth of the network. A simplified example was provided showing how the session negotiation between two peers takes place. Once the identities are verified, the communication becomes encrypted, providing MITM protection. The conversation concluded with the hope that most of these issues will be solved once the majority of people upgrade.
Updated on: 2023-06-11T04:34:35.893511+00:00