My Bitcoin 0.11.2 keeps trying to bypass Tor. To answer Gregory's questions:

- my DNS servers are not using this IPs

- yes, these IPs are mentioned in my debug.log, which says "failed: Host is down" because I keep blocking this connections with my reverse firewall

Today I allowed one of such connections and captured it with Wireshark. Any specific info you would like me to post to try to understand why Bitcoin Core is bypassing Tor?


I don't have "onlynet=tor" in my config; I just configured the SOCKS5 proxy on the Network settings in the Preferences of Core.

This is the strongest BUY signal I've seen since I'm into Bitcoin (end of 2012).

It would be SO good for crypto if mike hearn leaves the space for good to be focused on private databases for banks and whatnot.

That medium post really made me happy - thanks Mike, now keep your word and GTFO.

Of course not all clearnet traffic is encrypted but only in the last hop, when it goes from the exit node to the clearnet site (exit node -> clearnet site). During the rest of the circuit (user -> entry guard -> relay -> exit node) the traffic is always encrypted when you use Tor. Therefore, a malicious exit node could sniff the traffic, or even perform a MITM attack to break a SSL connection, but nevertheless such a malicious exit node would just be seeing the traffic, not the clearnet IP of the user.

Summing up, unless in the traffic itself there is some deanonymizing information (for example because you are logging in an email account with emails wrote by or to your "real life" persona, or because you are logging to a social media account linked with your real identity) there is no way for a malicious exit node to deanonymize you just by sniffing the traffic because they cannot know the clearnet IP of the source, they only know the IP address of the destination.

I think you misunderstood that attack. A successful attack vector, now fixed, allowed malicious entry guards (not exit relays) to inject packets in the encrypted traffic, and that allowed the attackers to track the traffic through the whole circuit (entry guard -> relay -> exit node) and in that way they danonymized the users.

What an exit node could do is a MITM, but nevertheless they are not able to deanonymize users just by MITM them. Imagine I cannect to bitcointalk.org through Tor, the exit relay could MITM me to grab my bitcointalk credentials (but still I would get a warning regarding a bad SSL certificate which I should dismiss for the MITM to work), but they wouldn't be able to know my clearnet IP unless they controlled the whole circuit or did some very complicate traffic correlations attacks that only a gov. agency is able to do.

Why? The exit relay doesn't know your IP, the only one knowing your IP is the entry guard and the traffic going through the entry guard is encrypted and routed through a second intermediate relay before reaching the exit relay.

Don't get fooled: every single individual with an above average knowledge about bitcoin (let's say 0,5% of the world population) knew this was just an hoax from the very first minute because of the faked proofs + a completely wrong "intellectual signature" for this guy to be satoshi (even Wired acknowledged in the very first article that this looked like an elaborate hoax), BUT the irrefutable fact is that this Craig guy has fully accomplished his mission. From now on, he can subtly imply that he is Satoshi to 99,5% of the world, and 99,5% of the world will believe him because they will google his name and they will see that Craig's name has been linked to Satoshi on the mainstream press, worldwide.

Keep in mind that 99,5% of the world population doesn't know what's PGP and and how easy is to backdate keys, 99,5% of the world population did not read Satoshi's paper or Satoshi's posts on bitcointalk, 99,5% of the world population cannot tell the difference between "satoshi@vistomail.com" and "satoshin@vistomail.com", 99,5% of the world population has no clue about cryptography or distributed systems and thus they cannot realize that most of Craig's talk on the matter is mumbo-jumbo, summing it up 99,5% of the world population has not enough knowledge to clearly see the truth on this matter.

At the end of the day this guy will go on forever scamming people by making them believe he is Satoshi. He will tell his friends, he will tell potential business partners, he will even tell regulators and tax offices. And because of the irresponsible journalists looking for clicks I can guarantee you that most of his scam targets will end up believing him.

I've been doing transactions non stop during the last hours and all of them have been confirmed in the next block.

Stress test? Zero fucks were given by Bitcoin.

He's clearly trolling and applying a twisted "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic.  He's been arguing that bitcoin is a scam and predicting his imminent disappearance for almost two years now, it's obvious he thinks that by pushing in favor of XT he's doing a service to his own beliefs/agenda.

For me Mr. Stolfi is the perfect contrarian indicator - it has been for years now.

Any successful service that has a wallet per user will control MANY funded addresses. Think about online wallets, markets, laundry services, gambling sites, etc. etc. etc.

You could be looking at hundreds of thousands of addresses controlled by a single entity.

That's in fact the major tradeoff with "blockchain distribution" - service operators will get the lion share of the pie, while their users will get nothing.

What makes CLAM interesting is precisely its distribution - the fact that everyone who had some BTC in May 2014 was rewarded with a few CLAM has huge marketing potential. The fact that there's still 15M CLAM "undigged" is NOT a liability, on the contrary it is a demonstration that there's still a lot of people that could potentially enter the market and community.

Stopping the digging would be pretty lame - and CLAM would become "yet another scamcoin". Furthermore, if such a change is announced (the end of digging), I'm sure you would see the opposite reaction you'd expect: people would hurry to claim their CLAMs to dump them asap.

Most of them support either 8MB or Garzik's BIP100. Gavin's and Hearn's BIP101 is getting extremely little support (less than 1%).

This is because even the most business-minded CEOs of funded startups who dream of taking on board 2 billion users in 6 months understand that going to 8MB to then double the block size every fucking year till we reach 8GB blocks (!!!) is simply reckless and crazy.

Almost everybody knows that bigger blocks are needed rather sooner than later - what the SANE people in this community is trying to do is to reach a reasonable and safe consensus about how and when to increase such limits.

Finally, I guess that even the CEOs of hyper-funded startups understand what bitcoin users are looking for when they use bitcoin... Quoting a thread on reddit:

DiscusFish is at least partially supporting Garzik's BIP100

This is baseless FUD. There are many Bitcoin developers who are not related to Blockstream against XT because they favor a more cautious approach to the block-size increase.

Anyhow, anybody following your posts since the beginning knows you are anti-Bitcoin. You have said Bitcoin believers are delusional fools, you have also said Bitcoin is a ponzi-scheme that will go to 0 rather sooner than later, you've never supported Bitcoin and you never will.

It is not a surprise that you are pushing the most dangerous solution (8MB straight away and then x2 every year until 8GB are reached) that will probably lead to complete centralization and thus the death of Bitcoin. It is not a surprise that you go to great length to expose the "conflict of interest" of devs associated to Blockstream, while you don't comment on the very real issues that such an abrupt change in block size could bring to Bitcoin.... Nor you criticize Hearn's and Andresen's shady agendas.

Hopefully you've at least bought some.

Yes, I'm 100% sure he never signed any a) public communication or b) private communication that was made public by the recipient.

There's no evidence whatsoever about that; if you have a quote, please link to it.

1) Satoshi never cryptographically signed any communication.

2) satoshi (at) vistomail is NOT a fake address - in fact it is the email address from which Satoshi originally sent the Bitcoin Whitepaper

3) The email was not spoofed, it actually originated from vistomail's server. The email headers show the email originated from 190.97.163.93 and the SPF records show this as an authorised sender for the email.

4) there is no evidence whatsoever of satoshi (at) vistomail having been compromised (the compromised email was satoshin (at) gmx)

About 1): Hero/Legendary members in here should know that Satoshi never signed anything - obviously he did that in purpose, and the reason has to be that he wanted a) plausible deniability, b) a focus on the CONTENT of his messages and not on a "creator" who had the last word on anything.

Furthermore, the recent intervention by the "new Satoshi" on the mailing list is consistent with the writing style of the "old satoshi", and so is the content - therefore it is reasonably possible that the message is legit.

That said, I don't think it changes anything. Anybody with half a brain understands that XT is a shitcoin launched by two shady individuals with ties with gov agencies and dangerous agendas (blacklisting, anti-tor policies, "proof of passport" for miners, etc.), no need for Satoshi to realize that.

I just hope somebody spreads this info on Reddit, which is where most of XT zombie supporters lurk.

What did you expect from Hearn? He showed his cards long ago proposing "proof of passport" for miners, anti-Tor policies, blacklisting of "tainted" coins...

He made his intentions pretty clear.

This is crazy...