Which Masternode model should we implement?

[TanteStefana]

It all comes back to whether or not it's illegal to run a masternode and for nearly all countries, it isn't. Further, unless you are setting your masternode up on a VPS that takes DRK, your anonymity is already compromised. Further, the majority of existing masternodes won't change out their IP addresses so at least half the network would remain "exposed" anyway.

This is on top of the fact that any sort of onion-based routing will increase latency.

I'm most worried about latency. I'm for speed. I think the quality of service should be paramount. If knowing Masternode IP addresses makes the system vulnerable, then that should be addressed. But paranoid thinking that ip addresses will lead to a government seeking masternode owners out and arresting them... well, I just don't see it happening. At least not in the US, I still think we have that much freedom left for a while ;P if they tried to ban crypto-currencies, the reasons they'd have to cite would be a slippery slope indeed.

so um... #1 for me. If we could enforce minimum RAM and CPU power per MN, all the better. IP address sharing wouldn't bother me as long as the RAM and CPU power is up to par for each. I know this isn't possible yet, but it would be great if it could be done

 

[TanteStefana]

Yes. When under Tor or I2P it can still happen but will be much much more expensive and will require a lot more power.

Why is TOR so slow that you can't stream videos etc? I mean (now I'm really ignorant, so please help me understand) doesn't the internet ping info off of millions of computers? Why would streaming off a few more cause latency? Sorry, I really don't understand TOR. In fact, I thought it worked the same way masternode blinding is working... that info just bounced off of other computers, taking on that computer's ip info instead of keeping it's own?

Thanks for any explanation

 

[GNULinuxGuy]

Why is TOR so slow that you can't stream videos etc? I mean (now I'm really ignorant, so please help me understand) doesn't the internet ping info off of millions of computers? Why would streaming off a few more cause latency? Sorry, I really don't understand TOR. In fact, I thought it worked the same way masternode blinding is working... that info just bounced off of other computers, taking on that computer's ip info instead of keeping it's own?

Thanks for any explanation

Networks in general are limited by the bandwidth/latency of every hop along the way, and presently there is little to no financial incentive to run onion routing nodes, much less high performance ones. It's actually pretty surprising the TOR network runs as well as it does. Higher performance nodes may well be attempting to gather information and/or hijack insecure sessions/systems.

 

[TanteStefana]

Thanks GNULinuxGuy, I still hope we could turn the masternode network into a paid tor-like service, though I understand why some people want us to only concentrate on the currency side of things. However, I think that if we have the man power, and as DASH matures and doesn't require so much work for the core currency side of things, that adding value to our network would be a great idea.

 

[TanteStefana]

crowning, I changed my config file to lower case "d" or dash.conf from Dash.conf and it still doesn't open in the wallet. Do you think I might have a setting incorrect in the wallet? Perhaps we need to unlock our wallet to do this?

Also, if you change things there, they won't take effect until the next reboot, right?

Nope, unlocking does not help Wonder why my wallet won't do this? Win7

Can everyone one windows please try opening their conf file in the wallet:
Tools => Open Configuration File And let us know if it's working for you? Thanks!

 

[crowning]

crowning, I changed my config file to lower case "d" or dash.conf from Dash.conf and it still doesn't open in the wallet. Do you think I might have a setting incorrect in the wallet? Perhaps we need to unlock our wallet to do this?

Also, if you change things there, they won't take effect until the next reboot, right?

Nope, unlocking does not help Wonder why my wallet won't do this? Win7

Can everyone one windows please try opening their conf file in the wallet:
Tools => Open Configuration File And let us know if it's working for you? Thanks!

It's not dependent on any wallet setting, it just opens dash.conf with whatever editor is configured on your computer for files with the extension ".conf".
Or, if nothing is configured yet, shows a popup where you can choose with which program the file should be opened.

When you go the folder where dash.conf is located (with Windows Explorer or whatever) and double-click on it the exact same thing is done. What happens when you double-click on dash.conf here?

Another test: another wallet function which use the same (Qt-) call is Tools->Information->Open (Debug Log File). Does this work on your computer?

 

[TanteStefana]

How did I start writing in here? I meant to put that in testing! LOL.

And you found my problem. I never linked notepad++ as the default program to open the file (always right clicked and chose notepad++ because it's right there in the choices) So now I've linked them and of course, it works Thanks, and sorry for bringing this up in the wrong thread

It's always something stupid with me, thanks for your patience!

 

[chatterbox]

1.) One node per IP.
-Higher cost to run a node
-Network will support more computing power
-Zero anonymity for masternode operators
-Much faster response time for Masternode tasks
-Support tasks on direct connection to masternode (Greater security for DS and other tasks like that).
-Highly resistant to DDOS (thousands of machines)
-Less centralization
-Supports Masternode Blinding

.

#1

 

[Nthelight]

IP obfuscation for MN owners always seemed essential to me. I've been waiting for a very long time for this to be implemented. Initially I didn't even want to set up a MN because the IP would be public. Seeing this thread leaning so quickly towards option #1, I strongly believe that this would then remain a significant weakness for the Dash/Darkcoin network.

For what it's still worth, I'm with anyone who understands the need to explore the options to hide the IP of MNs. They may not be perfect and there will be some trade-offs, but to me it certainly seems better than leaving the MN IPs in the open. Seems the reasons to go for option #1 are merely distractors blinding some people from making the fundamentally right choice. The identity of MN owners should be protected to large extent, imho.

Seriously, aren't we basically disclosing the identity of MN owners, to ultimately protect the identity of the sender of a transaction? First anonymous cryptocurrency, except for the second tier enabling the whole anonymous transaction functionality? Isn't this a bit like being a random proxy for a drug deal and then claiming law enforcement is not going to consider going after the proxy?

Also kind of upset that it was initially so easily dismissed. Evan saying "let's go for option #1" after four posts by community members. Doesn't seem like a mature/objective discussion was still desired. It looked like Evan had already decided before asking the community. Looks like somehow this is not considered as a 'must have' anymore? This thread should spark discussion for a long time. We should be learning about what is required to achieve that objective. Researching such a challenging technical topic is difficult, so perhaps we must indeed contact some knowledgeable people from different communities/technologies who could help Dash?

Therefore option #3, disregard the presented #1 and #2 in the OP and come up with a better solution through objectively discussing and assessing the options we have. I'll be reading more in-depth on TOR/I2P asap.

 

[Solarminer]

I'm most worried about latency. I'm for speed. I think the quality of service should be paramount. If knowing Masternode IP addresses makes the system vulnerable, then that should be addressed. But paranoid thinking that ip addresses will lead to a government seeking masternode owners out and arresting them... well, I just don't see it happening. At least not in the US, I still think we have that much freedom left for a while ;P if they tried to ban crypto-currencies, the reasons they'd have to cite would be a slippery slope indeed.

so um... #1 for me. If we could enforce minimum RAM and CPU power per MN, all the better. IP address sharing wouldn't bother me as long as the RAM and CPU power is up to par for each. I know this isn't possible yet, but it would be great if it could be done

From what I can tell, the masternodes really don't use much CPU or RAM so I don't see this as a relevant requirement. If you want to ensure fast transactions we should be focusing on connection speed and latency requirements.

I disagree on the idea that the US won't go after IP addresses running nodes. They can claim masternodes support anonymous 'terroristic' transactions(like they are with cash). I strongly believe that IP addresses should be hidden, even if it isn't full anonymity. It just needs to be enough that a specific node can't be tied to an IP address. Maybe the IP addresses are just stored publicly as number/letter string(maybe use the mn key or wallet 0 address). This string/IP relationship could be shown at it's masternode, but no other node could display the relationship. Each masternode would know the actual IPs that were referenced by this string and there should no loss of speed communicating.

Countries may decide to ban communication with certain internet services/ports(think China/Egypt). If the masternodes communicate with a string then this could also be assigned to an IPV6, onion, or tor address and the network could still work. Put a priority on the string to first communicate with IPV4/IPV6 and then onion or tor nodes to keep the network as fast as possible. This could also enable other communication features like anonymous messaging and distributed storage. This may see unrelated, but an anonymous service first requires and anonymous currency and an incentive to run nodes, DASH is perfect for this..

I suggest we use the masternode vote system to determine how this feature is implemented instead of a few dozen forum posts.

 

[ScioMind]

I ABSOLUTELY feel that a HIGH PRIORITY should be placed upon somehow anonymizing the IP/Identity of masternodes.

By simply saying, essentially, "it's much easier to implement other desirable features if we do not to anonymize the masternodes," that is a disincentive to such anonymization. If there were truly NO OTHER WAY then I would agree that the idea of masternode anonymization would need to be abandoned. However, Evan and the entire dev team have proved to be QUITE innovative, and have turned DASH into the most technologically advanced coin, bar none. (It's only a matter of time before everyone else catches on to this, and DASH surges on to surpass even BItcoin in terms of adoption.) If it takes more work, more thought, more time...whatever...this should definitely be implemented.

Sure, masternode operators are incentivized to run masternodes...but how much will such incentivization be worth if/when some govt. decides that masternodes (and their operators) are doing something wrong? Can they consider all operators to be "colluding" or "conspiring" together for some evil purpose? Common sense would say "no," but it is always possible that SOME govt(s). may decide just that...and if you happen to be in their jurisdiction, watch out! Such an event could essentially kill DASH, or at least leave it irrevocably maimed.

Do the right thing...ANONYMIZE THE MASTERNODES...PERIOD...NO EXCUSES.