Skip to content

Conversation

brunoerg
Copy link

TorV2 is deprecated, implementations are removing any support for it and we could specify this deprecation here. Especially because implementations are no longer serializing/deserializing and relaying Tor v2 addresses, they're ignoring incoming Tor v2 addresses, etc.

@jonatack jonatack added Proposed BIP modification Pending acceptance This BIP modification requires sign-off by the champion of the BIP being modified labels Sep 19, 2025
@jonatack
Copy link
Member

Pinging BIP author @laanwj for feedback or approval.

Not sure if Appendix A about Tor v2 address encoding should be removed or kept for historical context.

@jonatack
Copy link
Member

Perhaps a Changelog would be useful here.

@brunoerg
Copy link
Author

Not sure if Appendix A about Tor v2 address encoding should be removed or kept for historical context.

Or maybe we could keep it for historical context but change the title to Appendix A: Tor v2 address encoding (Deprecated).

@jonatack
Copy link
Member

jonatack commented Sep 25, 2025

Maybe Appendix A: Tor v2 address encoding (for historical context, as Tor v2 is no longer operational)

| <code>TORV2</code>
| 10
| Tor v2 hidden service address
| Tor v2 hidden service address (**Tor v2 is no longer operational**; clients **MUST NOT** gossip or relay Tor v2 addresses and **MUST** ignore them on receive).
Copy link
Member

@laanwj laanwj Sep 25, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It doesn't look like ** works (the idea was to make bold text, i guess?) in the rendered version. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/278aa42bdca2824d0e42fbfa4a7167955b08aaf1/bip-0155.mediawiki

Also i wonder if this wouldn't better be moved to a footnote, instead of having the entire text in the table

E.g. Tor v2 hidden service address (no longer used [1])

[1] Tor v2 is no longer operational; clients MUST NOT gossip or relay Tor v2 addresses and MUST ignore them on receive

@laanwj
Copy link
Member

laanwj commented Sep 25, 2025

Concept obvious ACK

Copy link
Contributor

@murchandamus murchandamus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the review, @laanwj.
@brunoerg: I think adding a Changelog section and moving the majority of the text into a footnote sounds good.

@murchandamus murchandamus added the PR Author action required Needs updates, has unaddressed review comments, or is otherwise waiting for PR author label Sep 29, 2025
@brunoerg
Copy link
Author

Thanks for the review, @laanwj.
@brunoerg: I think adding a Changelog section and moving the majority of the text into a footnote sounds good.

Agreed, will do it.

@brunoerg brunoerg force-pushed the 2025-09-torv2 branch 2 times, most recently from 42fb375 to 31158ef Compare October 1, 2025 17:59
@brunoerg
Copy link
Author

brunoerg commented Oct 1, 2025

Just moved the text into a footnote (I just noted that some BIPs calls the section that refers to <references/> as References and some others as Footnotes - so I think I put it on the right place) and added a Changelog.

CI failure seems unrelated:

./typos
jq: jq-1.7
$ ./typos .
Warning: "Falke" should be "False".
error: `Falke` should be `False`
    ╭▸ ./bip-0099.mediawiki:355:62
    │
355 │ Btcdrak, Gavin Andresen, Gregory Sanders, Luke Dashjr, Marco Falke.

@jonatack
Copy link
Member

jonatack commented Oct 1, 2025

@brunoerg CI issue is indeed unrelated, fixed in #1996

@jonatack jonatack reopened this Oct 1, 2025
| <code>TORV2</code>
| 10
| Tor v2 hidden service address
| Tor v2 hidden service address (no longer used<ref>Tor v2 is no longer operational; clients MUST NOT gossip or relay Tor v2 addresses and MUST ignore them on receive</ref>)
Copy link
Member

@jonatack jonatack Oct 1, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agree that this information was too long for the table and is better as a footnote.

Should Appendix A also be updated with that info? Seems odd to leave it as-is and have it be contradicted elsewhere in a footnote. What do you think?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree it's odd to leave the Appendix A as is. We could point out there to the same <ref> we introduced before.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done.

@jonatack jonatack changed the title bip155: mark torv2 as deprecated bip155: mark torv2 as no longer in use Oct 1, 2025
@jonatack jonatack removed the PR Author action required Needs updates, has unaddressed review comments, or is otherwise waiting for PR author label Oct 2, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@murchandamus murchandamus left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me.

Comment on lines +198 to +201
* 0.2.0 (2025-10-01):
** Add note that Tor v2 is no longer operational.
* 0.1.0 (2019-02-27):
** Initial version
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Actually, per BIP3 which specifies the Changelog section, the initial version should be 1.0.0. And this may well be considered a breaking change of the specification?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Pending acceptance This BIP modification requires sign-off by the champion of the BIP being modified Proposed BIP modification
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants