You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When using raspiblitz, I noticed that the terminal instructions, found at ELECTRS > CONNECT How to Connect suggest to connect to the onion address with port 50002:
...
To connect through TOR open the Tor Browser and start with the options:
electrum --oneserver --server <your-onion-address>.onion:50002:s --proxy socks5:127.0.0.1:9150
...
I'm not familiar with the TOR protocol, but I've read some discussions stating that one don't need TLS, when connecting to an onion service.
I've found out, that the bitbox app for example allows the connection to the onion address with port 50002, checks the certificate and displays it would be using TLS. The connection to the onion address with port 50001 was working too, needed no certificate check and displayed TCP.
I'm confused which one is the more secure way of connecting to electrs.
In case that port 50001 should be used, wouldn't it be good to also display that port in the cli interface?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
When using raspiblitz, I noticed that the terminal instructions, found at
ELECTRS
>CONNECT How to Connect
suggest to connect to the onion address with port50002
:In the documentation page Manual configuration: Tor hidden service it says the following: (it is using port
50001
instead)I'm not familiar with the TOR protocol, but I've read some discussions stating that one don't need
TLS
, when connecting to an onion service.I've found out, that the bitbox app for example allows the connection to the onion address with port
50002
, checks the certificate and displays it would be usingTLS
. The connection to the onion address with port50001
was working too, needed no certificate check and displayedTCP
.I'm confused which one is the more secure way of connecting to electrs.
In case that port
50001
should be used, wouldn't it be good to also display that port in the cli interface?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: