pull down to refresh
related posts
11 sats \ 0 replies \ @shyfire 6 Jan 2023
A "good problem to have" is still a problem.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @jonatack 9 Jan 2023
This may be a premature or erroneous conclusion.
I have been running bitcoind over I2P since more than 2 years now without issues, apart from one bug recently that the router in question (i2pd) appears to have patched with the latest 2.45.0 release (am still testing).
We haven't seen a notable increase in the number of bitcoin peers running I2P recently, and most bitcoin nodes don't change the default I2P configuration settings or configure bitcoind to turn off I2P listening. It is likely that bitcoin nodes may not be the issue at all. This is also the view of the developers of i2pd, the I2P C++ router that most Bitcoin nodes with an I2P service are using.
Here are two replies to the OP by someone from the I2P Java router team:
Here is an article I wrote recently on the topic of why and how to use I2P and CJDNS with your Bitcoin Core node:
- https://jonatack.github.io/articles/using-alternative-p2p-networks-with-bitcoin-core
reply
11 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 6 Jan 2023
It is more interesting to see how Indra will fix this issue for bitcoin / LN nodes.
I really hope will get more help.
#71383
reply
6 sats \ 0 replies \ @kristapsk 6 Jan 2023
I2P differs from Tor here that by default every I2P instance also acts as a router.
reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @humblepleb 6 Jan 2023 freebie
thanks for the info! Updated my i2pd version now to 2.45 released 2 days ago which will hopefully help the network.
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @nym 6 Jan 2023
The I2P network isn't nearly as anonymous as the Tor network, and people are ignoring that. Why do you think it still works?
reply
16 sats \ 0 replies \ @bangbang_u_r_done 6 Jan 2023
can you elaborate please or share with me some material?
reply
2 sats \ 0 replies \ @bitb 6 Jan 2023
in which way isn't it nearly as anonymous as the Tor network?
reply