<p​eachkelsy:matrix.org> ?????

<j​effro256:monero.social> I mean, depends on your traffic patterns. If you use the internet from the same residential hookup between accounts and largely use the same websites, it probably doesn't matter privacy-wise if you do an account for 1 year vs 1 month since they can track you all the same

<p​eachkelsy:matrix.org> I use home connection

<m​odul8:matrix.org> 20 years. I'm bullish.

some of us will be dead in 20 years

<m​ark:chat.nicecrew.digital> Reminder to give a way for your wife/children to have access to your crypto if you die, otherwise it's all lost.

On 'monero.fail' and 'xmr.ditatompel.com' someone has entered a lot of .onion nodes that obviously¹ all point to one server or monerod. (¹The port assignment suggests that all hidden services run on one Tor-instance via one IP.)

Over 20: 234567.*d.onion or 7777777.*d.onion - I wonder what the point is behind it.

Someone with bad intentions would use random .onion addresses and not make it so obvious with Tor vanity addresses.

Another question: monero-docs and monero.fail/opsec recommend the 'tx-proxy=' option 'disable_noise'. It was previously discouraged because it skips Dandelion++ and has a slight privacy trade off.

'tx-proxy=' Sends local txes through SOCKS5 proxy.

Are txes from users/wallets connecting to my remote nodes RPC port local?

'tx-proxy=' Sends local txes through SOCKS5 proxy.

Are txes from users/wallets connecting to my remote nodes RPC port local?

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> "<b​oldsuck> Are txes from users/wallets connecting to my remote nodes RPC port local?" Yes

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> Dandelion isnt needed for tx-proxy. The privacy tradeoff is that the recipient node fluffs immediately, so it doesnt add noise to the recipient node's stems

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> W/o disable noise, it adds plausible deniability as to which tx are originating at the recipient node vs being received via aninymous-inbound

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> Imo, for the sender, disable noise is more private and secure than w/o, because it sends to all of your tx-proxy peers, and they all fluff immediately. Its like featherwallets multibroadcast, but private. A malicious peer cant refuse to relay your tx and force you to retry

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> And thr recipient node wont be sybilled because it will be fluffed to 10s-100s of nodes at once

Thanks, I was unsure about that for years. ;-) Ok, then I will enable 'disable_noise'.

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> omitting disable_noise is good if you believe your onion peers to not be malicious. If your onion peers are also using tx-proxy (they have to be if they use anon inbound) then their node will only ever broadcast tx that didnt originate from their node

<r​ottenwheel:unredacted.org> boldsuck planning on reporting the reverse proxied .onion nodes to ditatompel and [@lza_menace:monero.social](https://matrix.to/#/@lza_menace:monero.social) at some point? :D

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> theyre obvious. Plowsof and a few other ppl know about them as well

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> They were all offline at the same time, further confirming that they all point to the same underlying node

Lucky number 7 nodes

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> Boldsuck - the port assignment is likely some 9-5r just doing their job

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> theres no reason they couldnt have used 18081 for all of them, as the virtual port os per onion

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> They used different ports a) because they are retarded b) because they are following orders / dont get paid to think

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> 234567 one2345 7777777 6666666, ports 18289 18389 etc

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> What harm can they cause? High fee.. not relaying tx + perhaps greed mining or forcing user to regenerate the tx on a diff node

AFAIK: You can't have multiple onions with the same port listening on one IP. Not even with multiple Tor instances.

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> Each onion uses its own virtual port range 👍

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> You can have 1000 onions on the same instance all using `HiddenServicePort port 18081 127.0.0.1:18081`

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> bro just thumbs up its own message

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> bro just thumbs up its own message 👍️

<s​yntheticbird:monero.social> # 👍️

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> You can have 1000 onions on the same instance all using `HiddenServicePort 18081 127.0.0.1:18081`

OK, I'll try this later on a test server. 2 Tor instances listen on one Port

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> Ya dont believe me? Lol

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> Each onion has it own port range

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> ```

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> HiddenServiceDir /var/lib/tor/sythbehird

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> HiddenServicePort 18081 127.0.0.1:18081

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> HiddenServiceDir /var/lib/tor/ofernxmf

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> HiddenServicePort 18081 127.0.0.1:18081

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> HiddenServiceDir /var/lib/tor/monderbull

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> HiddenServicePort 18081 127.0.0.1:18081

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> ```

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> This is why the 7777777 person is retarded

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> 1. They made vanities for no damn reason

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> 2. They uses different ports for no damn reason

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> its like a retarded troll or an underpaid employee following instructions from someone who lied on their resume about knowing how 2 use tor

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> If they did what i just posted, the only way i would have known that they were the same node was by them failing their uptime check

BC: You can have 1000 onions on the same instance. - Theoretically yes. If there are 80-100 hidden services on an instance there are often problems as not all of them come online.

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> I guess we'll know soon if they read the chat

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> Also, 1000 was just to say "you can use the sane port as many times as you want (on diff hidden services ofc)". Not that 1000 is realistic

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> same goes for i2p

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> Source: i do it all the time. Probably have 5-10 running on port 80 atm

I've never tried this because I haven't needed it yet and I have entire subnets on the servers.

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> I use port 80 on onion/i2p bcuz it drops requirement of typing port into browser

I think I add a list trusted 'add-priority-node' in monerod.conf.

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> For onions? The problem with that is using up those trusted peers incoming slots

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> Also, a lot of ppl seem to think that you can add rpc peers, which just causes your node to constantly try (and fail) to connect

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> If i add a priority peer, its usually only 1, and usually just to try to make sure that our nodes dont fork off from one another

<o​frnxmr:xmr.mx> .. but thats clearnet. I dont think i use priority onion/i2p

I have 3 own onion & clearnet remote nodes in add-priority-node. I add a few clearnet nodes that also have IPv6 as 'add-peer'.

<m​onero.arbo:matrix.org> afaik i2p doesn't use ports, all ports point to the same service

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> I2p uses ports if you have the same key file attached to more than 1 port

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> The lowest port will respond to anythibf between 0-lowest port

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> If the key file is only config for 1 tunnel, then any port will work

<o​frnxmr:monero.social> I2p uses ports if you have the same key file attached to more than 1 tunnel