Topic: Are you running Bitcoin Core through Tor? Should it be a requirement? (Read 822 times)

I wasn't expecting to generate such good discussion, it was great reading the community opinion on this one. I'm also sided with most users opinion on the main theme of the thread - making TOR a requirement to run Bitcoin Core is unimaginable - it would be too much of a risk and would leave the future of the network in the hands of one entity.

As a side note, what I am planning on doing regarding my node, considering the community feedback, is a mix usage - Make the initial synchronization behind a VPN and, when it finishes, I'll use it connected to TOR. That way I won't overload the service with the amount of data that it takes to sync while, at the same time, speeding the process considerable.

The way TOR traffic is routed is largely up to me.  I can use a different circuit for each website I visit, and completely separate circuit for my bitcoin transactions.  Or, I can set up my own node with an Onion address, connect to it from anywhere in the world, and avoid all entry/exit nodes all together.  You seem unaware of how to use TOR and how it works.


Go read my first post in this thread before making such generalizing comments, please.  I clearly stated that I believe bitcoin should work on any and every network available.  Privacy is a natural right to which we're all entitled.  The levels to which, and methods by which we choose to preserve our privacy should be a personal choice.  I have no issues with people not protecting their privacy at all, that's up to them.

If you are okay with a centralized VPN provider, and don't care about the government's ability to subpoena your traffic, that's your choice.  Just don't go claiming that your choices are superior to mine despite you being clearly misinformed on how to use TOR to protect your privacy in ways that a VPN cannot.

I'm not trying to convince you to use anything - I'm pointing out that your VPN is almost certainly not providing the protection you think it is.

And my interest is that everyone deserves privacy from any and all third parties they want privacy from, but a VPN is unlikely to achieve that in isolation.

The day I have to give up all my privacy to use bitcoin is the day I sell it all for monero.

Do share the findings from the paper. I'm not an academic that is affiliated with IEEE unfortunately. Would be good if you can share the results and the methodology of their findings as well as the false positive rates. Note that we're more concerned about identifying specific users rather than recognizing that people are using it. The latter does absolutely nothing, and if it poses a security risk for you, you actually have better things to worry about  .
I'm waiting for your response to the post for which I've highlighted how none of those research demonstrates any viable proof-of-concept which can effectively strip and identify the users. I would appreciate if you could clarify with the research that you've done.
I guess privacy isn't a concern even after how NSA revealed that they're tracking tons of data. I really don't care about mass adoption of Bitcoin, if we can't even promote methods to enhance our day-to-day privacy.

 I would burn 80 gallons on a tx till they come and say it's not ok.

---

Fissile fuels.

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

then, you don't understand how Tor traffic analysis and detection of its users really works,  sorry

Read this at least. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8258487


Hm, misinforming, why me rather than you?

You try to convince me that  TOR is 100% safe while there are plenty of cases showing that is not, just google.

Who  is misinforming then?

---

Generally speaking Bitcoin over TOR is nonsense  for me.  On one hand we want the fastest mass adoption of this cryptocurrency but on other hand  we afraid  publicity and use TOR which is traditionally  associated with  illicit activities in the eye of Joe and Maggy.

That's irrelevant.  I can only imagine that governments do indeed have exit nodes for monitoring TOR traffic, but if you understood how TOR works you would know they are only getting one straw from every hay stack.


I won't presume to speak for o_e_l_e_o, but I'm not trying to convince you of anything, only trying to prevent your misunderstanding from misinforming others.

Some people want to talk with stubborn people, and attempt to reason with them. It reinforces their understanding. Some others don't have the patience. o_e_l_e_o probably belongs to the former.

Symmetrically, you have absolutely no way to verify your entry and exit nodes are  not government's honeypots that cooperate together.

I wonder why you are so persistent in convincing me to use thing that I don't need? What is your interest here?

A government could easily create a whitelist for certain VPN providers or servers used by corporations and a separate blacklist for VPN providers or servers accessible by individuals.

Not wrong at all. You have absolutely no way to verify your VPN provider is not keeping logs, sharing data with your government, or indeed a honeypot.

I can't force myself to believe that you think that packets relevant to personal VPN differ from those ones pertaining to corporate VPN.


Wrong assumption from your part, sorry.

More than that, I can confide I pay tax relevant to BTC  regular as clockwork so I don't afraid government in this respect.

The reason my node operates through a VPN is due to my profound lack of trust in my ISP. I do my best to  keep my involvement with bitcoin concealed from individuals residing in my county.

Corporate VPN usage and personal VPN usage are two different things, however.

I would also suggest that if your government blacklists Tor because they cannot spy on you if you use it, but they are fine with you using a VPN, then your VPN is probably not providing the protection you think it is. What is more likely - they are fine with people trivially bypassing their blacklists, or they know they can get whatever information they want from your VPN provider?

VPN users are  not subjected to be blacklisted in my  country.  In fact, the company for which I'm employed forces its employees to incorporate VPN usage in their daily routine and safeguard their work space.


Please, don't twist satscraper's thoughts.

It is not my advice. I have never advised to not use TOR.

I just took part in the poll and shared my view on TOR with an eye on government's attitude to TOR users in my country.

Everyone is free to have its own move.

If that is satscraper's belief, he might actually have a point (to some extent.)  I'm sure the government would love for everybody to take satscraper's advice and use VPN instead of TOR, because the Feds can subpoena a VPN provider to trace your movements.  They can't subpoena your TOR movements, because there's no central provider for TOR.  They would have to subpoena hundreds, if not thousands of individual TOR relay operators, and even then they're unlikely to find anything concrete.

On the other hand, if you're using TOR and the government knows about it, what can they do about it?  Outlaw the use of TOR?  Will that stop the use of TOR or only make it's use more wide-spread?

Anyway, it's not out of the realm of possibilities for the feds to plant a Ray Epps in Bitcointalk.org to spread misinformation.  

If your ISP has the technology, capabilities, and resources to monitor your connection and detect (for example) meek obfuscation of Tor traffic, then it will be trivial for them to identify your VPN traffic.

I have to say I don't quite understand your threat model. You seem to want to avoid Tor because you think your government will blacklist you if you use Tor to hide your traffic from them, but you think they will have no problem if you use a VPN to hide your traffic from them instead?

Thank God I'm not alone. Genuinely, my Internet provider couldn't make port forwarding less difficult to setup. Like, I have to call someone in their stores, and have them confirming that I'm indeed the owner of the router, so they can approve the port forward.

I mean, not just ISPs. You're literally letting every surveillance firm knowing how much money you have in lightning, and with whom you've opened channels.

You'd have to go inside your router's control panel to reroute ports to other ones, and not all of them let you do that, so that's basically asking for trouble if you change networking equipment often.

I think all LN nodes should be using hidden services, because I don't like the idea of painting a giant target for ISPs who can see whether any of their IP addresses are involved in running Lightning nodes.

Knowing that I'm using Tor, versus knowing to whom I connect to is orders of magnitude different. I don't care if my Internet provider knows I'm using Tor. And even if I do, there are bridges as said, which are unlisted and make censorship even more difficult to happen.

By the way, am I the only one who likes the fact that you don't mess with port forwarding when you want incoming connections? There's a reason why most lightning nodes operate via hidden services.

Relevant material: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/04/nsa-gchq-attack-tor-network-encryption.

Their modus operandi involves compromising the target's computer and then identifying vulnerable plugins before attacking them. They are often the weak link of any computer systems and if you're strictly routing Bitcoin Core through it then you should have no concerns with the exposure of your identity and they have a hard time to link your identity beyond reasonable doubt. Generally, Tor has been proven to be a PITA for intelligence agencies. For VPN, they are unfortunately able to capture the logs, and they are unable to prove that they are not doing so. Besides, they are legally obliged to cooperate with law enforcement.

As for the labelling of connections, they don't really mean much and you're equally likely to be targeted by establishing connections to VPNs and made worse by the availability of data provided by the VPN providers. The first amendment basically guarantees that whatever their citizen is doing isn't illegal.

I would care less about that, and more about the misinformation that is presented. You're entitled to your own opinions, cheers!

Having enough money to buy your freedom legally is out of reach for most people. I believe anonymous money on the other hand can buy (some) freedom at much lower cost.

--Knight Hider

As I have already mentioned, I"m aware of all techniques that can be used to obfuscate TOR traffic.

But, as the old saying goes "caution is the parent of safety".

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/nsa-targeting-tor-users
https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/nsa-labels-linux-tails-users-extremists/

 A while back Snowden has denounced the NSA power to track TOR traffic.

Go to NSA official page  and enter TOR into the search field. Even in open docs you  may find many teaser stuff.  




Many - YES. All - NO.

---

I'm aware why you all  are so persistent in convincing me about TOR. The more users use it the harder work for surveillance agencies.

But,    count me out,    count me out,    count me out!   

These people are those who will be more interested in hiding their identity and ip address while running a node.
Is it possible you misunderstood my post you replied to?

- Jay -

Basically, if you have money, you have freedom. Money really buys freedom. By the way, you have to do your own research when you decide to change country for the reasons what was written above, I am not going to suggest anything to anyone, I already wrote more than enough for some.

By the way, moving in another country can be hard for some, that's absolutely individual. After spending one-two months in foreign country, I feel like I'm at home, I adapt to things and culture very easily and everyday life of particular city very easily. But I agree with you, I have known people who were about to cry after living for one month in another country.

1. Not everyone live on country where it's government respect people's freedom.
2. Moving to another country is harder than it sounds.


Unless they're high profile person or they live in authoritarian country.

None taken! Thanks for the references.
The paper is actually quite outdated and is only applicable in very specific scenarios:
1) For some reason, every single hidden service peer gets attacked and is unable to establish any connection to the target node. That is very, very resource intensive considering the fact that the number of nodes running on Tor outnumbers the ones on the clearnet.
2) The user uses an outdated version of Bitcoin Core, which is roughly around 7 years ago by my estimates. We have improved a lot to counter topological analysis since then and they work pretty well.
3) Section 3 basically talks about a sybil attack, which fails to deanonymize a user with sufficient accuracy if any of the peers other than those controlled by the attacker is connected to the target.
This is independent of the usage of Bitcoin Core. It has to do with the user's privacy habits which essentially means that you have to tell everyone that you're the owner of this specific address in your hidden service. Definitely not something that anyone with privacy in mind would do.
This doesn't demonstrate anything that is related to Bitcoin Core and Tor.
Portscanners would only work if your Bitcoin Core accepts incoming connections, and it also practically doesn't serve any use or deanonymize the user.

This doesn't really do anything.

As mentioned above, Tor bridges can be used as well.

Haven't seen this for a while but generally whatever is said there can be easily debunk with a little research. Tons of affiliate links to VPNs on the site as well, go figure .

https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/oct/04/tor-stinks-nsa-presentation-document

VPN connections are fairly recognizable as well, even with daisy-chaining. Arguably, VPNs are even easily identified and flagged with DPI, GFW has done this on numerous occasions.

If they can, then I believe VPN wouldn't be the best option either.

That's the whole point behind pluggable transports. They mask your Tor traffic as something else which prevents your ISP or government from identifying it as Tor traffic. As I mentioned above, obfs4 makes your data look totally random, while meek makes it look like you are browsing a clearnet website. Given that these work in many different jurisdictions to bypass many different types and methods of censorship, we know that they work.

I run my bitcoin core node through Starlink, but there was no selection field in the survey 

TOR users are more interested in hiding their identity and masking their ip addresses than the fact that they are using TOR.

If the poll is already flawed you cannot imply calculate for errors and assume that is a reasonable estimate.

- Jay -

Yeah, it is designed to be censorship resistant, but its packets have some recognizable  patterns that allow to mark the relevant network traffic as to be originated from TOR app.


My fault, I didn't check the math on article text.

Given the exceedingly slow number of users who have participated  in the poll  I would consider ~50% to be reasonable estimate.

I am not sure if it is a typo but the calculations taken to arrive at 82% looks flawed from the article text:
Those figures should give a total within the region of 55% and not 82%.

---

You can also not take a pool of 20 users who we cannot guarantee actually run a node to be any accurate.

- Jay -

Who blacklists Tor? It is by design censorship resistant. I'm rather getting my local IP address censored, because as a citizen I'm forbidden to access certain websites in my country.

What's the point of that? The VPN provider will be able to de-anonymize your Tor activity, and can blacklist / censor / scrutinize you further, which is your concern as you're saying.

I talk about Western countries in this case. We have that freedom, if you move your ass, you can protect your identity online. Western countries can block VPNs but they don't do it, they leave some room for those who want freedom and I think that's a clever strategy.
By the way, your country blacklists people because of Tor usage but you are a digital nomad, you can change things. You can move in countries like Armenia, Moldova, Georgia and you'll have a huge digital freedom. It's another task whether you'll enjoy life there.
Overall, in life, if you want to get something, you have to give something.

Poll results shows that ~ 2/3 of bitcointalk users use clearnet to run their nodes, the rest utilize darknet. At the same time,  statistics gathered  by  Bitnodes  API reveals opposite result - 82% of nodes route their traffic via TOR".

Any thought on this obvious  discrepancy?

P.S. My explanation is that most of  darknet nodes are running by agencies/institutions who are nor bother yourself to be present on bitcointalk.

As I have already repeatedly said my main concern with TOR is not-zero-probability to be blacklisted and further scrutinized rather than to be  personally identified. 

And yeah, they can set malicious VPN service that is why user must carefully select the one he could trust. The preliminary research is the best thing he can do before paying for VPN.

Tor via VPN, yeah, it might be solution, but I'm not sure if they have power to strip off VPN packets (even XORed) that enveloped the relevant TOR ones and thus blacklist me.

While very interesting to read, this paper is about deanonymizing the users of hidden services. It's not about deanonymizing Bitcoin Core users. They associated Bitcoin addresses with online identities on Twitter and Bitcointalk. Some of them could be linked to real identities. That's not because they used Bitcoin Core through Tor, it's because they posted addresses in public places. Using a VPN instead of Tor doesn't change that.


They didn't compromise Bitcoin Core through Tor. If someone posts his Bitcoin address here and makes a payment to an address posted on a hidden website, it's not that difficult to put one and one together. It's also not that difficult to avoid.


--Knight Hider

Lots of people use VPN for gaming, streaming and for unblocking limited apps and content on smartphones, smartTVs, etc. I think it doesn't worth to blacklist all of them because I guess majority of internet users have used VPNs at least once in their life while 90% of them probably have never even downloaded Tor.

I'm just saying that to my mind, there is a high chance that they aren't blacklisting VPN users. I wouldn't worry about this fact if you work remotely for a company and can travel in eastern Europe. Things are rarely regulated in Eastern European countries, people, police and even higher ones are rarely educated about this staff. Things aren't as controlled as in the West.
Every IT worker who appreciates privacy, should aim to become a digital nomad.

And if they are doing this for Tor, what makes you think they aren't doing the same thing for VPNs? If you think they can pick up on Tor pluggable transports such as obfs4 and meek, then they can definitely pick up on VPN traffic. It's also far easier for the government to set up a malicious VPN service or to subpoena existing VPN services to hand over data than it is for them to do the same thing Tor nodes.

If you really wanted, then you can always connect to Tor via your VPN.

Bitcoin as a decentralized network, for the people, by the people should provide as many options as possible to make it easy for all types to use.  So, no it should not force TOR onto it's users.  Some folks will require more privacy than others, such as those who live where bitcoin is banned, but others who don't need the IP privacy should be able to use faster, less congestive, more accessible networks.  As mocacinno said, there're other ways to maintain privacy, since no one can determine if a node originated the transaction or merely broadcast it.  Especially if a node has both, clearnet and TOR enabled.

The sad truth is that most people who were born after 1985 have no clue what privacy really looks like, and couldn't care less about it.  They're used to living in world with cameras everywhere, including one in every pocket of every human they encounter.  Geezers such as myself are still distrustful and skeptical of the Surveillance States that have taken over the majority of our national governments.  But that doesn't mean I won't troll them.  So, unlike o_e_l_e_o I have one node server running both clearnet and TOR, but I never transmit any transactions over that node.  

I run two other nodes purely over TOR; one is my desktop hot wallet, and another server for SPV services.  So, whether I use Electrum, or just transact through my Bitcoin wallet, I know that my transactions are likely to be routed through TOR.  I say "likely" because there is a chink in my armor; all three are configured with addnode to connect to each other using my local LAN IPs, so in reality I don't know which of the three is going to broadcast my transactions to the rest of the network.  But that's a decision I made fully conscious of the risks, and it's something I can change in about 30 seconds.

So, why do I want to troll my government?  They deserve it, and should be put on notice!  The Federal Reserve is a leading cause of corruption within our economic structure (banks are too big to fail? WTF) and facilitates the federal government's overreach of power.  Not to mention it's unconstitutional.  

So yeah, bitches!  I'm using bitcoin every chance I get.

/\
II
Well, don't take offence, just  read:

1)Bitcoin over Tor isn’t a good idea
2) Deanonymizing Tor hidden service users through Bitcoin transactions analysis.
3)Bitcoin network-based anonymity and privacy model for metaverse implementation in Industry 5.0 using linear Diophantine fuzzy sets

and research:

 1)a simple (and rather ad-hoc) port scanner for Tor hidden services
2) Bitcoin Network Probing Tool

I think it's enough for the start.

However, it seems to me that you have missed the main reason why I against TOR for my node - I don't want to be blacklisted.



It is a wrong assumption that you can escape the  fate  of those TOR users who are already in that list.

https://restoreprivacy.com/tor/

Hmm sure, doesn't seem like a productive discussion. In fact, it would be quite counter intuitive to what a forum discussion is but do as you please.  

Well, I don't need support from your part in my decision to use VPN, rather than TOR, when connected my node to the net, sorry. I'm comfortable with my multi-hop VPN service. If you comfortable with TOR, please, use it.  No objection from my part, cheese.

P.S. As I got it, anyone, including me, is free to cast his vote for one of two options  in this pole. As I see right now,  No TOR option is ahead of TOR

That is not how onion routing works. Exit nodes are used when and only when traffic are routed to the clearnet. Otherwise, they are routed within the network through the relay nodes and at no point in time will they reach the so-called specialized exit nodes. The traffic within the network are encrypted end-to-end and it is not possible to use any methods to decrypt those without explicit knowledge of the keys.

If you've read the leaks on these Tor exploitation, traffic analysis with the ISP is the only chance that they're able to gain any sort of confirmations. Regardless, the security risk with running Bitcoin Core through Tor is greatly reduced. Bitcoin Core has good defenses against topological analysis and you need to control and compromise all of the connections to be able to break the privacy of it. That is fairly hard.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the fact is, it is significantly easier to compromise a VPN provider than it is to compromise a distributed network. To facilitate discussion, it would be great for your claims to be substantiated and any research that we can do on our own won't be conclusive and allow us to support your opinion. Thanks!

As matter of fact specialized exit nodes running by surveillance agencies on behalf of government are capable to catch any info they are focused on. Nothing to add. DYOR.


No illusion. I don't need it. Give it to secret service in your country.  


Choose right VPN provider and it will never happen.  

I'm reluctant to open all surveillance techniques publicly, sorry. DYOR.

What do exit nodes have to do with connecting your full node to the Bitcoin network via onion URLs? When connecting to a hidden service, both the recipient and the sender utilize rendezvous points, not exit nodes that can de-anonymize the content's destination.

There is no illusion. If I give you my onion URL to connect, neither you nor me can de-anonymize each other. Let alone the Internet providers.

I don't understand how a trust-requiring service gives you no illusion comparably to a peer-to-peer, no-trust-requiring, anonymity network. The VPN provider will hand over any details requested by your government, or their government.

Yeah, not all nodes, but I can not choose the "transparent"  one.




By discovering   TOR packets in users' traffic  they suspect  them in  illicit activities  and put  those users into blacklist for further scrutiny. This is the common practice for almost all governments.

I know one can  obfuscate TOR traffic. However, government is no slouch when it comes to  discover such traffic.

1. Not all exit node operated by surveillance agencies.
2. Exit node isn't needed when you communicate with other node which use .onion rather than IPv4/IPv6.
3. Using encryption limit information could be extracted by malicious exit node.
4. What exactly do you mean by "blacklisted by my government."?

Strong opposite  to  TOR  for my node.

TOR is full of exit-node-traps laid down by surveillance agencies, thereby it would give me the illusion for anonymous communication with Bitcoin network.

Besides if using it I would be blacklisted by my government.

I prefer multi-hop  VPN.

I am running a few nodes, as of now only 2 of them through tor. Used to be more.

It came down to the fact that I found tor performance to be wildly unpredictable at times. And since a couple of my nodes have several LN channels open, at times creating a simple transaction timed out. 2 minutes later it was fine. Never had that with clearnet. So, in the end I just started migrating them to clearnet.

Let's hear it for laziness overcoming privacy.

The other side is also time, work is busier and so are just a few things on the personal side, nothing bad, just stuff. So a couple of years ago I could have spent time figuring out what was causing the issues. Now, it would cut into getting something else done. I made the decision to close the channels and reopen clearnet ones to test. None of the timeout issues happened, so instead of figuring out what was causing the tor side problems I just left them on clearnet.

If I get more free time again, I'll probably move them back and see if I can figure out what was up. But, it might be a while before that happens.

-Dave

IMO the middle ground should be using VPN (which good privacy history and doesn't leak IP/DNS request) to perform initial sync.


One also could use curl to prevent sending browser fingerprint, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.57186698.

I turned off my dedicated server a while ago due to it's price going out of controll. But yeah, i did run a full node for many (many, many,...) years on the clearnet. I do posses the skillset to run a node on the Tor network (i had several sites that were available on the clearnet and via a hidden service), but i always kept most of the same reasoning as the one i explained at the very top of this post, right up untill i shut down my server.

I agree with the opinions above that Core should never require Tor, and it should always be optional. Having said that, it's an option I will always use. I trust my government and my ISP less far than I could throw them. I don't even want them to know I'm interested in bitcoin, let alone own any, let alone run a node. Yes, the IBD takes weeks, but what's the rush?

There is a middle ground where you can sync your node over clearnet, but then use Tor to broadcast transactions. You can also broadcast transactions over Tor using the likes of http://mempoolhqx4isw62xs7abwphsq7ldayuidyx2v2oethdhhj6mlo2r6ad.onion/tx/push and bypass your node entirely.

I'm happy to have bumped into this thread (from the perspective of someone who's soon will have a node running). I assumed (by default) that I would run my node through TOR to increase anonymity, but it seems that it may not be a consensual opinion. Do you still run in in clearnet @mocacinno? Would surely also like to see the opinion of @o_e_l_e_o on this subject .

Big no from me. First of all, I assume that you mean generally "Bitcoin clients", not just the most popular one. If bitcoin clients required Tor to run, then the entire bitcoin network would be on Tor's fate. Bitcoin would need Tor to exist, and tor isn't that decentralized. Tor's nodes don't work the same way Bitcoin nodes do, but that's a different thing to discuss.

But there's something more important than that. Routing through layers would make bitcoin go slower. Right now, with 100mbps, it takes me around 48-72 hours to download the entire blockchain. With tor it'd be the tenfold of that. That means less nodes.

Having it as optional is better.

I'm fully with you regarding this. But if everyone would be required to run the node over Tor, how would you handle Sybil attacks? Tor-based connections don't provide any clues that could help figuring out whether different connections come from the same entity.

The ISP or anyone that can see the traffic between your computer and the clearnet can probably tell if the transaction originated from you or someone else. This probably would be the main reason why people are using Tor.

---

I second with the above sentiment. I don't think forcing everyone to be communicating through Tor is necessary. Bitcoin is after all not that privacy-centric by nature and trying to force it to be Tor only would just create a false impression that it helps to improve privacy in the first place. I've tried running through Tor using my main computer and it just doesn't work which could probably be something wrong with the configuration and it's just way too troublesome to debug and fix. It's kind of tough running Tor in certain countries without bridges and provided that you're able to download Tor in the first place.

I prefer options as well.  I lean towards TOR often but not always.  Choice is important because many have different use needs.

Even if it was objectively better, which I share the opinion of the posters above, that is isn't. I don't like the idea of forcing something, which would actually weaken the Bitcoin network. Let me just elaborate on this; We ideally want as many users running nodes as possible, right? So, by restricting nodes to only Tor would reduce the amount of people that run nodes, effectively weakening the network. Besides, Tor is optional, and works well with running a node. If a user has a specific reason why they want to use Tor, they can.

Even if, running a node on the Tor network was objectively better, which I think is probably up for debate by those in favour of it, I don't like the idea of forcing users to use a specific platform which isn't bulletproof in the first place. Tor is as anonymous as the end user makes it, and despite it being a pretty good out of the box solution it itself is susceptible to attacks, and if we are relying on what effectively is a third party program to run a Bitcoin node, any outages or vulnerabilities would have the chance of knocking out all Bitcoin nodes for a period of time, which is definitely not great for Bitcoin in general.

That's without addressing the issues of a slow tor connection, which could prevent people from running a full node, out of sheer impatience which again isn't a good idea for the overall health of the network. There's just so many reasons, some of which I haven't touched upon why forcing full nodes to run through Tor is a bad idea.

I run my node on the clearnet, and i'll probably keep running it on the clearnet...

Why? A multitude of reasons really... Some making more sense than others:

• Even IF a peer starts analysing the packages exchanged between him and you, he still doesn't know wether you created a transaction or merely broadcasted a transaction from somebody else. If you don't re-use addresses and mix coins before moving them to cold storage (or a hardware wallet), your privacy is reasonably safe... Safe enough for me atleast
• More peers = less chance of a sybil attack
• I don't want to overload tor nodes for services that aren't really necessary...
• Slow... If you want to sync your node over Tor, it won't take hours, but days or weeks
• It's a little harder to setup...

As we know, we have the option to run Bitcoin Core either through the clearnet or through Tor. For me, Tor is a must. As long as it improves my privacy, it's an option I definitely wouldn't skip.

However, some people would rather run it through the clearnet. Are you running it through Tor? Why? (If your answer is negative, why not?) Do you have a specific reason?

Also, do you believe it would be better if Bitcoin Core required Tor?