<p>The encryption aspect of BIP324 isn't very useful on Tor/I2P, but it's pretty cheap in terms of computation power (cheaper than the old unencrypted protocol on many systems!).</p>
<p>We could define a slimmed-down transport protocol to be used on these privacy networks (e.g. the BIP324 packet encoding, but without encryption or authentication tags), but I think the cost of yet another protocol isn't worth the benefits.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-09T17:11:14.017Z
2024-01-09T18:57:14.577Z
2024-01-09T18:57:14.577Z
Pieter Wuille
<p>Just testing the recent <strong>BIP324</strong> on my node, since Bitcoin Core v26 and having <code>v2transport=1</code> in <code>bitcoin.conf</code> set, I have noticed that I am receiving some incoming connections using the v2 transport protocol to my node, which can only be reachable to incoming connection, using Tor and I2P, with my onion/I2P addresses, and if I make outgoing peer connections using the v2 transport protocol from my node to some Tor or I2P addresses, the connection is successful. It works without problems, ok.</p>
<p>But, <strong>considering that these two networks are encrypted by design</strong>, is it redundant to use this additional security layer for these networks? If, yes, shouldn't it <strong>only be used for ipv4/ipv6</strong> connections to avoid this unnecessary redundancy?</p>
<p>Refs:</p>
<p><a href="https://support.torproject.org/about/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://support.torproject.org/about/</a></p>
<p><a href="https://geti2p.net/en/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://geti2p.net/en/</a></p>
<p><a href="https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0324.mediawiki" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0324.mediawiki</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-09T11:05:36.620Z
Have you read the link you included in reference? https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0324.mediawiki#motivation has a " Why not use a secure tunnel protocol?" section addressing BIP324 vs proxy networks (Tor, i2p, ..).
Antoine Poinsot
<bitcoin-core><encryption><tor><bip324-p2p-encryption><i2p>
Is BIP324 v2transport redundant on Tor and I2P connections?
2F4kT0r
# Is BIP324 v2transport redundant on Tor and I2P connections?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-01-09)

Just testing the recent **BIP324** on my node, since Bitcoin Core v26 and having `v2transport=1` in `bitcoin.conf` set, I have noticed that I am receiving some incoming connections using the v2 transport protocol to my node, which can only be reachable to incoming connection, using Tor and I2P, with my onion/I2P addresses, and if I make outgoing peer connections using the v2 transport protocol from my node to some Tor or I2P addresses, the connection is successful. It works without problems, ok.

But, **considering that these two networks are encrypted by design**, is it redundant to use this additional security layer for these networks? If, yes, shouldn't it **only be used for ipv4/ipv6** connections to avoid this unnecessary redundancy?

Refs:

<https://support.torproject.org/about/>

<https://geti2p.net/en/>

<https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0324.mediawiki>

**Tags:** bitcoin-core, encryption, tor, bip324-p2p-encryption, i2p

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Have you read the link you included in reference? https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0324.mediawiki#motivation has a " Why not use a secure tunnel protocol?" section addressing BIP324 vs proxy networks (Tor, i2p, ..).  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2024-01-09. Score: 8

The encryption aspect of BIP324 isn't very useful on Tor/I2P, but it's pretty cheap in terms of computation power (cheaper than the old unencrypted protocol on many systems!).

We could define a slimmed-down transport protocol to be used on these privacy networks (e.g. the BIP324 packet encoding, but without encryption or authentication tags), but I think the cost of yet another protocol isn't worth the benefits.


---

