[tor-talk] BitPay seems to be rejecting payments via Tor

[Mirimir]

On 03/18/2017 12:38 AM, grarpamp wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Mirimir <mirimir at riseup.net> wrote:
>> it arguably ought to be a private VPN.
> 
> Run by relay operators was the general idea, a bit more spine,
> and more flexible setup. But certainly not restricted to that.

Right.

>> Problematic is limited IPv4 resource. I wonder if there's some way to do
>> ephemeral routable IPv6. I mean, why do proxies need addresses that last
>> more than a day? Why not give every circuit a different IPv6?
> 
> Some streams last more than a day, some apps are resumable,
> but breaking the tuple and forcing a reneg or getexitbridges
> more than once a day will seriously piss users off.

OK, some streams do last more than a day. But then they must pin the
exit relay, right? So in that case, you'd keep the IPv6 until the stream
ended, even if there were circuit changes with different middle relays.

I don't get why changing exit IPv6 would break resuming by client-side
apps. They don't (and shouldn't, obviously) manage exit IPs. Tor daemon
handles that. So they'd be oblivious as long as exit IPv6 persisted as
long as relevant streams, right?

> Millions of circuits worth of v6 a day also happen.
> But yes you could get and SWIP a v6 /whatever worth
> and throw them once a week or whatever your get and use
> model for users rationally permits. Once a week is 52.
> One per requestor, spread across all exits, probably possible.
> v6 are unlimited but hosters probably still charge like gold for them.
> Some operators should try it and see.

Well, I got a couple /64 for free from GigaTux for a low-end VPS. For
the VPN-testing project. And they do run a Tor relay, if I recall
correctly. A /64 gives you 1.8 x 10^19 IPv6. With ~2 x 10^6 daily users,
that's ~10^13 circuit days per user. So hey, I'll ask.

But how would Tor Project's relay monitoring work for exits with no
stable IPv6 address? Wouldn't they lose the exit flag?