Published on: 2017-05-09T23:11:31+00:00
In response to the study, the author of this response disagrees with the proposed solution of encrypting traffic among miners. They argue that encryption alone cannot identify the intended miner and could potentially be exploited by attackers. Instead, the author suggests using authenticated connections as a means of securing the network. The paper acknowledges that encryption is not effective in mitigating certain risks, such as isolating a smaller set of nodes for extended periods or biased outgoing connections. To address these issues, the paper recommends several countermeasures. These include increasing the diversity of node connections, selecting Bitcoin peers while considering routing, monitoring round-trip time (RTT), embracing churn, using gateways in different ASes, preferring peers hosted in the same AS and in /24 prefixes, using distinct control and data channels, employing UDP heartbeats, and requesting blocks on multiple connections. The author emphasizes the importance of authentication in centralizing the network and highlights that the most obvious solution is not always the most effective.The message posted on the Bitcoin-dev mailing list provided links to Bip proposals (bip-0150.mediawiki and bip-0151.mediawiki) related to the use of encryption in securing communications between nodes. However, no further details about the study or its findings were given.Overall, the study contributes valuable insights into the risks posed to the Bitcoin peer-to-peer network and individual nodes, as well as suggesting potential mitigations. It cautions against relying solely on encryption due to associated risks of centralization, highlighting the need for authenticated connections as an alternative approach.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T20:35:35.860644+00:00