doc: Highlight DNS requests part in tor.md #22317

pull ghost wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from changing 1 files +2 −0

ghost commented at 12:30 AM on June 23, 2021: none
What?

Highlight DNS requests part in Proxy section

Why?
1. DNS requests are very important while considering privacy
2. Lot of users might skip reading it because of the way it is mixed with everything else in the doc right now
3. I have seen lot of users ignoring DNS requests or unaware of such things while using privacy tools
How?

Initially I had tried keeping these lines separate from code block but Jonatack didn't agree with the changes. Harding suggested using bold/italic in <pre></pre>. I have used the suggestions from previous PR and added ---

This is a part of alternative described in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22316
DrahtBot added the label Docs on Jun 23, 2021
DrahtBot commented at 12:51 AM on June 23, 2021: member



The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.



Conflicts

No conflicts as of last run.
Rspigler commented at 5:01 AM on June 23, 2021: contributor

ACK 9bcea02c5b5fb3d8c622a4a0dce20a4ab8961d99
kristapsk approved
kristapsk commented at 7:32 AM on June 23, 2021: contributor

ACK 9bcea02c5b5fb3d8c622a4a0dce20a4ab8961d99
Highlight DNS request part 86a4a15bdc
in doc/tor.md:48 in 9bcea02c5b outdated
```
  45 | +                    ------------------------------------------------------------------
  46 | +                    <b>Note: Only the -proxy option sets the proxy for DNS requests;
  47 |                      with -onion they will not route over Tor, so use -proxy if you
  48 | -                    have privacy concerns.
  49 | +                    have privacy concerns.</b>
  50 | +                    ------------------------------------------------------------------
```
jonatack commented at 8:31 AM on June 23, 2021:

Maybe just bold or just the horizontal separators. Adding emphasis is noisy and eventually, as more is added for well-intentioned handholding, it makes the doc harder to read and understand and has to be tuned out by readers. A clean doc is a nice thing.

unknown commented at 9:01 AM on June 23, 2021:

Removed bold in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/86a4a15bdcc96eb565ab80166642d71d542061a9

jonatack commented at 9:26 AM on June 23, 2021:

Thanks!
jonatack commented at 9:29 AM on June 23, 2021: member

Thanks for updating.

ACK 86a4a15bdcc96eb565ab80166642d71d542061a9
RiccardoMasutti approved
RiccardoMasutti commented at 11:16 AM on June 23, 2021: contributor

ACK 86a4a15
Rspigler commented at 12:42 PM on June 23, 2021: contributor

ACK 86a4a15bdcc96eb565ab80166642d71d542061a9
lsilva01 approved
lsilva01 commented at 3:45 PM on June 23, 2021: contributor

ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/22317/commits/86a4a15bdcc96eb565ab80166642d71d542061a9
kristapsk approved
kristapsk commented at 4:36 PM on June 29, 2021: contributor

ACK 86a4a15bdcc96eb565ab80166642d71d542061a9
theStack approved
theStack commented at 12:30 AM on July 8, 2021: member

ACK 86a4a15bdcc96eb565ab80166642d71d542061a9

Agree that this privacy-relevant part deserves to be highlighted 🕵️
unknown closed this on Jul 12, 2021
Rspigler commented at 9:20 PM on July 12, 2021: contributor

We're all on the same team. If you decide not to reopen as discussed on IRC, I can pickup.
ghost commented at 12:01 PM on January 14, 2022: none

Reopened after reading this question: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/111801/restrict-bitcoin-core-to-tor/

Change still makes sense, respect reviewers for their time to review and agree, hopeful this could get merged and improve docs.
unknown reopened this on Jan 14, 2022
katesalazar commented at 6:47 PM on January 18, 2022: contributor

I think this isn't a bad (nor a good) idea.

Because the Don't Repeat Yourself principle, the affected lines shouldn't be edited manually, but be assembled from their true sources residing somewhere else.
ghost commented at 6:58 PM on January 18, 2022: none

I never realized this is mentioned somewhere in docs until I read it in one of the comments in some pull request. DNS is obviously important if discussing privacy so which doc would work better for users: 1 or 2?

I have also tried other things to highlight this but they were not acceptable to other reviewers: #22317 (comment)
katesalazar commented at 7:06 PM on January 18, 2022: contributor

which doc would work better for users: 1 or 2?

for many users who would value better that doc be perfectly synced to the program output, 2.
ghost commented at 7:11 PM on January 18, 2022: none

which doc would work better for users: 1 or 2?

for many users who would value better that doc be perfectly synced to the program output, 2.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I disagree though and this doc can be improved a lot. This is one of the improvements which had some ACKs.
achow101 commented at 7:31 PM on January 18, 2022: member

ACK 86a4a15bdcc96eb565ab80166642d71d542061a9
achow101 merged this on Jan 18, 2022
achow101 closed this on Jan 18, 2022
sidhujag referenced this in commit f0028afd3e on Jan 18, 2022
DrahtBot locked this on Apr 13, 2023