Chinese Researchers Propose Tor-Inspired Overhaul of Bitcoin 46
Patrick O'Neill writes: Although Bitcoin was never designed to be anonymous, many of its users have used it as if it were. Now, two prominent Chinese researchers are proposing a system that encrypts all new Bitcoin transactions layer by layer to beat network analysis that can unmask Bitcoin users. The new research is inspired by the Tor anonymity network. The researchers' paper is at arXiv. (Also covered by The Stack.)
Arxiv paper looks good,at first sight (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Arxiv paper looks good,at first sight (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And it is better for it. Want to know my bet on previous your comment? The idea was 100% stolen, on the number of words, my bet is atleast 50%.
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
Re: (Score:2)
Hey... all of those letters you've used here have been used before. 100% unoriginal.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Wasn't "Satoshi Nakamoto" an unknown author before publishing "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" [bitcoin.org]?
Or am I missing a joke?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that would work how? Apparently, you have no idea how scientific publishing works. Faked results are a real possibility, but stealing is actually quite hard.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't post as AC when trolling, and I haven't done the cow thing in a long time because I got bored of it.
I've always posted it under my own name.
Re: (Score:3)
Tor is not anonymous
Anonymity is an illusion. Given enough resources, everything you do is traceable, back to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me know when you can operate at the quantum level. Mkay?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing you mean on the internet, because that surely doesn't apply in real life!
On the internet, your statement isn't true either. I suppose you could say that given enough resources anything you do *might* be traced to you. Whether it actually could be depends on a lot of things like what logs various systems keep, whether you repeatedly engage in the same behaviour, and what exactly you mean by "enough resources". Like does managing impossible feats like controlling foreign hostile computers constit
Re: (Score:2)
(of a person) not identified by name; of unknown name.
Given enough resources, you can name anyone who does anything. Anonymity is only as good as the lack of resources allows. Therefore it is an illusion. It may be a practical illusion for many things, but it is still illusion. Same with Privacy.
I am fully aware that my actions are likely being monitored, at least partially, and that I am a known individual for enough things that my actions are neither private nor hidden (anonymous) for most things.
Re: (Score:2)
So untraceable internet transaction, I wonder how long it will be before three letter investigatory agencies start offering free stays in their resort facilities, where entrance is not voluntary and you stay as long as they want you to. You can imagine all sorts of stuff going on offer and all sorts of services being advertised, buy at your peril (pushing the bounds of entrapment but not so much if they use an informant middle person even when they are on commission). Using the currency pretty much puts a
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymity is quite real, you just need to make tacking harder than the enemy can afford to do.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as you use HTTPS and don't get MITM'd by false certificates or use some other secure protocol, the exit node is not the worry. That security is as good as SSH or any other crypto. It's that an adversary with enough resources can do correlation/traffic analysis or even just be the whole chain from start to finish.
If your traffic gets to its intended destination and back to you over public links then there's no fucking anonymity, just obscurity.
If your traffic gets to its intended destination and back to you over private links then there's no fucking anonymity, just obscurity. Because if you're the NSA there's no "private".
Re: (Score:2)
"Because if you're the NSA there's no "private"."
Depends what country you're in and/or what countries the links pass over. The NSA doesn't (quite!) control the whole internet.
Re: (Score:2)
"NSA was down there with submarines patching."
If you say so. They can't patch every link though.
Re: (Score:1)
HTTPS doesn't hide the fact that you're making a connection from host A to host B.
People think tor does that, but it doesn't (and it can't).
That's what anonymity is about. Encryption of the actual traffic is a separate issue (and cert based encryption is absolutely not secure, even with PFS - the governments of the world and the "trusted" root authorities are absolutely untrustworthy).
Re: (Score:2)
And if you had the fist idea what you are talking about, you would not make such bogus statements.
Re: (Score:2)
Only really if the data exiting the exit node is unencrypted.
If it goes over HTTPS then all the exit knows is someone tried to access a website on a specific IP.
If that IP is say a Google IP then all you know is someone on Tor wants to use Google which gives you nothing.
Translation of this headline: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The big d
Re: (Score:2)
Nope it wasn't designed to be anonymous, it was designed to be uncontrollable and impossible to "counterfeit." Every account's history is fully traceable. Any anonymity has to be between you and the account.
Re: (Score:3)
One should add that nobody that bothered to find out was ever in doubt about the lack of anonymity. People just assumed it was anonymous without good reason.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Bitcoin was never designed to be anonymous. It is sort-of pseudonymous only, but even that is mostly history.
Let's cram some more buzzwords in there! (Score:2)