<p>I don't think there any good reasons to use multiple SOCKS listener ports on the same tor in your situation.  After all, it all ends up in the same place.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-28T16:39:36.103Z
2013-04-28T16:39:36.103Z
Samuel Edwin Ward
<p>I can't possibly imagine to connect *coin, or P2P application in general, via TOR. They run slower and TOR from scratch wasn't designed for tunneling bandwidth hungry application.</p>

<p>But if you insisted, it would be safer to have private exit node, or frequently change identity per 15 minutes or so. You can use same SOCKS port for all, they use same exit node.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-30T21:11:20.503Z
`safer to have private exit node` Huh? If you're routing through a server you own, why involve Tor at all?
Nick ODell
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-07-28T18:58:16.527Z
2013-07-28T18:58:16.527Z
comepradz
<p>Should work just fine. Will be slow at the beginning, I recommend running the clients on the clearnet just to get the majority of the blockchains, then connect to Tor and start actually using the clients.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-27T23:46:52.567Z
Also, _comepradz_ is very wrong, but I don't have enough rep to comment on other's posts.
Zoey Mertes
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-27T23:46:07.283Z
2013-08-27T23:46:07.283Z
Zoey Mertes
<p>Or should I create multiple TOR socks ports and use one for each client?</p>

<p>I plan on running bitcoind, namecoind, litecoind, etc... all on the same ubuntu machine running under different users but all going though the same TOR connection.</p>

<bitcoind><namecoin><litecoin><tor>
Is it safe to connect multiple alternative crypto currency clients to the same TOR socks port?
user3145
# Is it safe to connect multiple alternative crypto currency clients to the same TOR socks port?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-04-09)

Or should I create multiple TOR socks ports and use one for each client?

I plan on running bitcoind, namecoind, litecoind, etc... all on the same ubuntu machine running under different users but all going though the same TOR connection.

**Tags:** bitcoind, namecoin, litecoin, tor


---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2013-04-28. Score: 2

I don't think there any good reasons to use multiple SOCKS listener ports on the same tor in your situation. After all, it all ends up in the same place.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2013-07-28. Score: 0

I can't possibly imagine to connect \*coin, or P2P application in general, via TOR. They run slower and TOR from scratch wasn't designed for tunneling bandwidth hungry application.

But if you insisted, it would be safer to have private exit node, or frequently change identity per 15 minutes or so. You can use same SOCKS port for all, they use same exit node.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: `safer to have private exit node` Huh? If you're routing through a server you own, why involve Tor at all?  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2013-08-27. Score: 0

Should work just fine. Will be slow at the beginning, I recommend running the clients on the clearnet just to get the majority of the blockchains, then connect to Tor and start actually using the clients.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: Also, _comepradz_ is very wrong, but I don't have enough rep to comment on other's posts.  

---

