Which Masternode model should we implement?

yidakee said:
Assuming the vast majority (ever) of MN Ops are already out in the open, their anonymity is already compromised. IF they are worried about it, they should use anonymous VPS providers like Flokinet that accepts DRK, or other providers that accept cryptos.

I'm not in the US, so I am in a proviledged position to absolutely not care a damn thing what crazy excuse the FED would have to implicate me with illegal activity, which is ridiculously easy to alegate against anyway, before any hearing committee.

We are earning minted coins from an absolutely legitimate business. Ross Ulbricht ran a centralizes websites and earned millions in dirty money. Shreem helped dirty money. We mint coins and do any coins going around MN's are totally uknown to us.

I vote #1 as it clearly improves performance, which is key here.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, no coins from any user flow through any masternode. The coins are mixed intrawallet. There is a misconception going around that anyone that uses Darksend has their coins flow through the masternodes themselves. This is not the case.
 
I know I know, that was just "small talk", but good you mentioned it for further reader reference
 
yidakee said:
Assuming the vast majority (ever) of MN Ops are already out in the open, their anonymity is already compromised. IF they are worried about it, they should use anonymous VPS providers like Flokinet that accepts DRK, or other providers that accept cryptos.

I'm not in the US, so I am in a proviledged position to absolutely not care a damn thing what crazy excuse the FED would have to implicate me with illegal activity, which is ridiculously easy to alegate against anyway, before any hearing committee.

We are earning minted coins from an absolutely legitimate business. Ross Ulbricht ran a centralizes websites and earned millions in dirty money. Shreem helped dirty money. We mint coins and do any coins going around MN's are totally uknown to us.

I vote #1 as it clearly improves performance, which is key here.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
oblox said:
Just to clarify, no coins from any user flow through any masternode. The coins are mixed intrawallet. There is a misconception going around that anyone that uses Darksend has their coins flow through the masternodes themselves. This is not the case.
Click to expand...
True. But why are we going to blind the Masternodes? The case is Masternodes can record DS transactions which then can be de-anonymized by taking hold of a majority of the MNs? The MNs are there to support DS. So there's obviously a close relation between the two systems.
 
Point 1
we need strong DS, this coin is for anonymity so even hiding IP of the MNs is very important.
We can and should think how to use the point 2 things and improve nr 1.
 
moli said:
True. But why are we going to blind the Masternodes? The case is Masternodes can record DS transactions which then can be de-anonymized by taking hold of a majority of the MNs? The MNs are there to support DS. So there's obviously a close relation between the two systems.
Click to expand...
The probabilities of deanonymizing a DS transaction, especially over a large number of rounds is already very slim as the percentage of the majority you would need to own would be substantial (and substantial capital investment behind it). Further blinding masternodes from all the "inputs" completely takes any argument of rogue nodes and throws it out the window.

I fail to see the point you are making, especially if it is surrounding an exposed IP.
 
oblox said:
The probabilities of deanonymizing a DS transaction, especially over a large number of rounds is already very slim as the percentage of the majority you would need to own would be substantial (and substantial capital investment behind it). Further blinding masternodes from all the "inputs" completely takes any argument of rogue nodes and throws it out the window.

I fail to see the point you are making, especially if it is surrounding an exposed IP.
Click to expand...
Just in case...
Evan has been doing improvements upon improvements so I believe this will be done in the future.
We'll get there ... :)
 
moli said:
Just in case...
Evan has been doing improvements upon improvements so I believe this will be done in the future.
We'll get there ... :)
Click to expand...
Masternode blinding is happening regardless of what happens with IPs.
 
While we are on this subject of having one IP per MN or not, is there any incentive to change the payment method to round ribbon based on the total number of darksend transactions served by MNs instead of the total number of MNs on the network?

I mean renting a VPS can be cheap too. Would it be better if the MN operators run their MNs on their own machine(s) instead of on some VPS or cloud?

If a MN serves more transactions and has better network response, should we pay that MN more often than some MN that serves fewer transactions? Of course, we need to make sure that MNs are selected with some fair rules during a darksend transaction if we do that.
 
GermanRed+ said:
While we are on this subject of having one IP per MN or not, is there any incentive to change the payment method to round ribbon based on the total number of darksend transactions served by MNs instead of the total number of MNs on the network?

I mean renting a VPS can be cheap too. Would it be better if the MN operators run their MNs on their own machine(s) instead of on some VPS or cloud?

If a MN serves more transactions and has better network response, should we pay that MN more often than some MN that serves fewer transactions? Of course, we need to make sure that MNs are selected with some fair rules during a darksend transaction if we do that.
Click to expand...
I think that's a dangerous path to go down since those mixing right now are so sporadic and with some parts of the day experiencing more activity than others instead of consistency across the board. With such a large masternode population, I think it's safe to say many would be screwed with the window being very narrow for those with more transactions processed.

Further, there isn't anything from stopping you from running a masternode on your home computer if you want. Whether or not you have a stable enough connection and bandwidth (a non-issue for me) is to be seen.
 
I support option 1 because hiding the IP without onion-routing is more or less impossible.

The only feature from option 2 I would LOVE to see implemented is multiple Masternodes per IP. Hey, the peers can broadcast their IPs, why not their ports?
 
oblox said:
I think that's a dangerous path to go down since those mixing right now are so sporadic and with some parts of the day experiencing more activity than others instead of consistency across the board. With such a large masternode population, I think it's safe to say many would be screwed with the window being very narrow for those with more transactions processed.

Further, there isn't anything from stopping you from running a masternode on your home computer if you want. Whether or not you have a stable enough connection and bandwidth (a non-issue for me) is to be seen.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you pointed out. What I am worrying is whether the VPS providers can be the weakest link if someone wants to control a lot of MNs (without buying any DRKs to set them up).
 
crowning said:
I support option 1 because hiding the IP without onion-routing is more or less impossible.

The only feature from option 2 I would LOVE to see implemented is multiple Masternodes per IP. Hey, the peers can broadcast their IPs, why not their ports?
Click to expand...
That's already possible... open port 9999 on your IP and then multiple datadir and config files with new RPC ports.
 
oblox said:
Masternode blinding is happening regardless of what happens with IPs.
Click to expand...
Yes I know. Evan said it can be implemented in either model.
What I was saying is I believe anonymity for Masternodes' IPs will be done in the future (or hope so!), as Evan tends to work on improving one or two things at a time.
 
moli said:
Yes I know. Evan said it can be implemented in either model.
What I was saying is I believe anonymity for Masternodes' IPs will be done in the future (or hope so!), as Evan tends to work on improving one or two things at a time.
Click to expand...
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 forgot to say that I vote for #1. If option #2 is the ultimate end product, it will be nice to see that MNs are getting paid according to the number of darksend transactions being served instead.
 
-Will support outbound only masternodes. I.e: How do you attack a node you can't connect to?
Click to expand...
UDP doesn't use connections. The UDP packet will still be received even with all closed ports. Unless a reverse proxy is used(which can be ddosed) then the masternode will be able to be ddosed. Knowing that most masternodes are hosted on ~5$/month hostings which provide very limited amount of bandwidth and no DDOS protection then anyone with a medium sized botnet(~10k) can easily takedown all 1-2k masternodes. Which completely kills the Darkcoin masternode network.

therefore a anonymity solution such as TOR/I2P is impossible.
Click to expand...

Why is this the case? When I2P finds its peers and connects to your wanted hidden service then traffic is exchanged almost instantly. More nodes in the I2P network = faster network.

Test it out with I2P BitTorrent client. You will quickly connect to peers and download at ~100 KB/s. 100 KB/s is the speed you can achieve with current I2P nodes as there aren't that many. Imagine what would happen to the I2P network if 2000 fast-nodes would go under it and start routing traffic? Not only it would improve anonymity but also decrease latency and improve speed.

Tor should be used if UDP support for masternodes is not required because Tor does not support UDP while I2P does. I think masternodes should go under Tor or I2P for anonymity and ddos protection reasons.

I might not know anything about cryptocurrency but when it comes to networking, malware and botnets I can fairly say that I am quite the expert. My hobby ;)
 
oblox said:
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.
Click to expand...
It isn't illegal today but it may be illegal in the future. We never know what the banksters will ask our politicians do about something they hate. So, I somehow think MN anonymity is something wanted if technically possible.
 
darkstrike420 said:
When running under a hidden service, there is no way to prove that the IP address in fact is running a masternode.
Click to expand...
Other than the fact that the IP address will show up on the masternode list further proving it is, in fact, running a masternode.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top