On 03/08/2017 03:12 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> In that way, I see BIP150 as an extension of IP addresses, except more
> secure against network-level attackers. If you believe the concept of
> people establishing links along existing trust lines is a problem, you
> should be arguing against features in Bitcoin software that allows
> configuring preferred IP addresses to connect to as well (-addnode and
> -connect in Bitcoin Core, for example).

Weak identity is insufficient to produce the problem scenario that is at
the heart of my concern (excluding people). It is this "[same] except
more secure" distinction that is the problem. You brush past that as if
it did not exist.

"We assume peer operators want to limit the access of different node
services or increase datastream priorities to a selective subset of
peers." - BIP151

Why is an IP address restriction not sufficient for this?

Because it is too weak to keep people out.

e