CryptoSlate
One seeder database held 25 CJDNS addresses, reached 22 and classified only seven as good. Martin Zumsande reported seeing three to four peers despite Bitcoin Core shipping 11 fixed CJDNS seeds, prompting an open debate over whether the optional P2P transport is useful insurance or a liability for poorly connected nodes.
Bitcoin Core documentation already discourages CJDNS-only operation because a shallow address pool can leave outbound slots unfilled and make a node easier to eclipse or isolate through Sybil activity. CJDNS can also run alongside IPv4, IPv6, Tor and I2P, giving mixed-network operators a different risk profile.
A proposal would warn users in 32.x and remove support in 33.x, but that sequence remains a question. Issue #36041 is open, and the attack cost is still unquantified; Bitcoin's consensus and block-validity rules are outside the debate.
Frequently asked questions
-
How many CJDNS addresses did the seeder classify as good?
The seeder reached 22 CJDNS addresses from a database of 25, but only seven passed its stricter good-node checks.
-
Why can CJDNS-only nodes face higher eclipse risk?
A shallow CJDNS address pool can leave outbound slots unfilled and give an attacker a more concentrated set of peers to target or use to isolate a node.
-
What removal timeline has been proposed for CJDNS?
A proposal would warn users in Bitcoin Core 32.x and remove support in 33.x, but that sequence remains a question and issue #36041 is still open.
-
Can CJDNS still be used with other Bitcoin network paths?
Yes. Bitcoin Core documents CJDNS as an optional path that can run alongside IPv4, IPv6, Tor and I2P, creating a different risk profile from CJDNS-only operation.
-
Would removing CJDNS change Bitcoin's consensus rules?
No. CJDNS is an optional P2P transport, so the debate concerns address handling and connection options rather than Bitcoin's consensus or block-validity rules.
CoinTelegraph
CoinDesk
Crypto Rank News
WuBlockchain
TheBlock