Brooks Boyd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-01-15 📝 Original message:> > 2) Secondly, we bump ...

📅 Original date posted:2014-01-15
📝 Original message:>
> 2) Secondly, we bump the protocol version, add a service flag and
> introduce a new P2P protocol command “tor?”. If a client sends a tor?
> message to a node that has the new service flag set, it will respond with a
> new “tor” message that contains a regular addr packet, with a single
> address, the IPv6-ified version of its hidden service name.
>


Rather than a separate message type that implies binding a clearnet IP to a
hidden service ID, why not add the service flag that the peer would like
Tor addresses, and the remote peer can then add IPv6-ified hidden service
addresses to "addr" messages? May need to modify the network address format
to include the ability to differentiate IPv6 clearnet vs. Tor addresses,
but then you remove the implication that a node has to give both public and
private IPs to a peer. If it's part of a batch of "addr"s, it could be my
own hidden service ID, but it could also be one that I learned from someone
else and is now propagating, for anyone to bootstrap with Tor hidden
service peers if they'd like.

Brooks
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140115/2f39ea14/attachment.html>;