Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Online Transacting via TOR Hidden Services #24

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
from

Conversation

@DavidBurkett
Copy link

commented Sep 2, 2019

Rendered link to RFC document

The proposal is to support building transactions via TOR hidden services to provide bitcoin-esque addresses, prevent MITM attacks, and make transacting easier by eliminating the need to setup port forwarding.

This helps pave the way for offline transacting via an SBBS/Grinbox-like relay system (future RFC).

@DavidBurkett DavidBurkett changed the title Online Transacting via TOR Hidden Services [WIP] Online Transacting via TOR Hidden Services Sep 2, 2019

DavidBurkett added 2 commits Sep 2, 2019

@lehnberg lehnberg added the wallet dev label Sep 2, 2019

@antiochp

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Sep 4, 2019

Without going into too much of the details here - why TOR hidden services and not I2P hidden services?
Particularly given the current WIP here mimblewimble/grin#2932 and mimblewimble/grin#2712

It would not make much sense to use I2P for the node p2p layer and TOR for wallet communication.

This is not a comment on the merits of I2P vs TOR, more a comment that we should pick one and agree to use it consistently.

Maybe the initial effort here should be to better compare the two via proof of concept wallet implementations?

@DavidBurkett

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Sep 4, 2019

@antiochp I mentioned the reasons in #tx-building keybase channel, but in a nutshell, wallets aren't necessarily expected to be online long-term whereas nodes most likely are. It's harmful to the i2p network to connect for brief periods of time. Not so for TOR. Also, TOR makes it really easy to generate new addresses and there's a few other important advantages. i2p is still more suitable for the node, though.

@DavidBurkett DavidBurkett marked this pull request as ready for review Sep 4, 2019

@DavidBurkett DavidBurkett changed the title [WIP] Online Transacting via TOR Hidden Services Online Transacting via TOR Hidden Services Sep 4, 2019

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.