When someone is banned, in some cases all of their IPs will also be banned. If they were using Tor, some Tor exit nodes will be banned. If you use Tor, you'll occasionally run into these bans. You can tell Tor to switch to a new exit node ("new identity") when this happens. Tor switches exit nodes every 10 minutes by default; you'll run into bans less frequently if you increase this time using the MaxCircuitDirtiness configuration option.
You should block either all exit nodes, or none of them.
Blocking only a few exit nodes doesn't make sense:
- It doesn't prevent spammers from writing a script to switch exit nodes until they can make their spammy posts.
- However, it prevents legit people from making legit posts because they have to repeatedly click "New Identity" until they can get through.
For example, to make this single post, I had to click "New Identity" more than five times. I have the feeling that non-blocked exit nodes are quite rare.
Admins have to decide whether they want to allow anonymous access to their site, or not. If you want to block anonymous access, then you should block all exit nodes. The tor website gives help on how to do that.
However, it seems like a paradox to me that a forum about an anonymous currency denies anonymous access.
Oh, and by the way: It would be nice to have a .onion address for bitcointalk - this would allow us to securely connect to bitcointalk without the HTTPS security weaknesses (HTTPS certificates can be faked...)
Maybe it is sufficient to ban users after their login (e.g. via cookie). It is possibly hard enough to start with a new account.
Some of the users came 2010 and 2011 to Bitcoins because of the rumors and rare 'advertising' in the I2P network. Is an I2P service possible, too?
