[Feature request] Fully Integrating TOR

I came by this interesting idea when reading about this coin:

http://www.neutrinocoin.org/faq#how-does-neutrino-work

Each node runs as a hidden service in TOR which allows not just connecting to the network through TOR like the current socks proxy method, but also allows the client to run as a full node capable of receiving connections.

I feel like this a brilliant idea for those who want to run a full node while at the same time keep their IP hidden and their piracy intact.

For the time being, this could be integrated as an optional check box in the options menu since. Maybe with the option saying : check here to run as a full node under TOR

Suggestion: multiple check boxes could be implemented

  1. Do not accept incoming connections
  2. Accept incoming connections through TOR only
  3. Accept incoming connections except through TOR ( no hidden service running)
  4. Accept all incoming connections (through open internet as well as through TOR as hidden service)

Thoughts on this?

PS: I could try to work on integrating this next month if it’s approved by the peerunity team. In the case it is not approved but there is enough interest in it, we could start a peer4commit project and make a torified client of peerunity.

This is all it takes.

[quote=“peerchemist, post:2, topic:2615”]http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=3077.0

This is all it takes.[/quote]
That is exactly the topic that reminded me of the coin mentioned above :slight_smile: … I believe that the functionality would be useful to people who just want to install the client well and not a full peerbox :slight_smile: but you’re right… integrating that into peerbox is definitely a step forward :slight_smile:

Great website security info/law in the US.

“officially”

I appreciate the anonymity that TOR provides, but I’m not sure that it’s really best for cryptocurrency. TOR exit nodes are already proven to be susceptible to attack, so why would a decentralized network like Peercoin want to introduce additional points of weakness?

I think a better solution for masking your location is using proxy/vpn. I think that bitcoin v0.8.6 contains the “-bind” option as well, so hopefully it will be present in v0.5. With “-bind” one can force all wallet traffic over a separate interface that is distinct from the default network. There is a growing abundance of affordable VPN options that should be able to maintain plenty of decentralization while allowing users to conceal their home IP address.

[quote=“learnmore, post:5, topic:2615”]I appreciate the anonymity that TOR provides, but I’m not sure that it’s really best for cryptocurrency. TOR exit nodes are already proven to be susceptible to attack, so why would a decentralized network like Peercoin want to introduce additional points of weakness?

I think a better solution for masking your location is using proxy/vpn. I think that bitcoin v0.8.6 contains the “-bind” option as well, so hopefully it will be present in v0.5. With “-bind” one can force all wallet traffic over a separate interface that is distinct from the default network. There is a growing abundance of affordable VPN options that should be able to maintain plenty of decentralization while allowing users to conceal their home IP address. [/quote]
The concern with exit nodes security can be answered with 2 points:

  1. The client to client communication through TOR would all be within the TOR network as hidden services can only be accessed through TOR. Therefore, exit nodes concerns are not really applicable here.

  2. TOR exit nodes are only a concern when we’re accessing non TOR websites through TOR. Which could be implemented as am option in the client to disallow connecting to non TOR nodes through TOR.

I can’t see how the potential for a disjointed network could ever be beneficial to security. And I think there is risk in any cryptocurrency going completely TOR as governments/ISPs have additional motivation to disrupt TOR regardless of their stance on the cryptocurrency.