( - )
2024-04-03 02:11:46
2,226 B

2 Outputs

Total Output:
  • j"1LAnZuoQdcKCkpDBKQMCgziGMoPC4VQUckMµ<div class="post">OK So, I tried to set-up a sudo-anonymous crypto 'Bitcoin Bank' experiment using Tor. <img alt="Grin" border="0" src="/static/img/emoticons/grin.gif"/><br/><br/>Whilst it was mostly successful using the standard 9050 socks port 'default setup' i.e. I got connectivity to other Bitcoin nodes through Tor; I did encounter various issues and multiple Warning messages.<br/><br/>"Your application (using socks5 on port xxxx) is giving Tor only an IP address. Applications that do DNS resolves themselves may leak information. Consider<br/>using Socks4A (e.g. via polipo or socat) instead."<br/><br/><a href=""></a><br/><br/>I eventually fixed this using Privoxy and Stunnel (because i'm more familiar with those) However, you could use polipo and Stunnel.<br/><br/>However, I still get occasional warnings for these ports 8333 (expected Bitcoin 'default') and 6667 (which if i'm not mistaken is an IRC port !?)<br/><br/>Connecting Bitcoin through Tor also makes Tor repeatedly change exit nodes looking to establish 'missing' connections to a [scrubbed] address. At first I assumed that this was because Tor exits might be blocking port 8333 or 6667, but that is mostly not the case !<br/><br/>Other P2P applications through Tor can 'ignore' IP addresses that they cannot connect to and the application can still get the job done without 'warning'. However, Bitcoin <i>must</i> try to connect with all nodes to check its not missing any blocks ! So, if an IP range where only 1 Bitcoin node is running is blocking Tor exit nodes, then presumably this will always be the case ?<br/><br/>This is problematic for many reasons. <img alt="Huh" border="0" src="/static/img/emoticons/huh.gif"/></div> text/html