-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Thanks everyone for the excellent feedback, that was very helpful in
understanding the issues at play.
s7r:
> But this is not the proper way to use Bitcoin behind Tor. So stream
> isolation for clearnet type circuits shouldn't even be a concern.
>
Roger Dingledine wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 07:53:54AM +1000, teor wrote:
>> And you're right, Tor Browser can use lots more than 8 circuits, so
>> I wouldn't worry about it.
>>
>> Do you know how much load Bitcoin places on the Tor network?
>>
>> If it's a lot, one good answer is to
On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 07:53:54AM +1000, teor wrote:
> And you're right, Tor Browser can use lots more than 8 circuits, so
> I wouldn't worry about it.
>
> Do you know how much load Bitcoin places on the Tor network?
>
> If it's a lot, one good answer is to encourage users to run relays,
> or
Hi Jeremy,
> On 28 Jun 2019, at 06:35, Jeremy Rand wrote:
>
> 2. Per-peer stream isolation prevents a single exit relay from feeding
> the user a chain that's not the longest chain, so it's desirable from a
> Bitcoin security point of view.
Tor itself uses 3 directory guards to make sure that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi Tor-Dev,
I'm trying to gauge the consensus (or lack thereof) in the Tor
development community on whether it's desirable for Bitcoin clients
(e.g. Bitcoin Core) to use stream isolation such that each peer is
accessed over a different circuit.
