Which Masternode model should we implement?

GermanRed+ said:
Not to criticize you. However, I want to point out that you sound like Tor is going to solve everything automatically. However, as we know, even Flash in a browser needs to be disabled in order for Tor to work without leaking information that may be useful for NSA. So, I think taking the minimal part of Tor that will make it work on darkcoin network will be the better way to go since it also ease the pain for users who would need to set up Tor.
Click to expand...

Flash needs to be disabled because it ignores proxy settings of the browser.

Also setting up Tor is downloading and executing it, no configuration needed.
 
darkstrike420 said:
Flash needs to be disabled because it ignores proxy settings of the browser.

Also setting up Tor is downloading and executing it, no configuration needed.
Click to expand...
I read the Tor setup documentation some time ago and I thought it was not that simple. There are other means to get you on Tor if the setup is not done right. I think SR is a proof of that statement.
 
eduffield said:
There's a couple of competing ideas that have been floating around and I'm not sure which one is superior. The basic question is, should the masternodes show their IPS or not? The answer everyone immediately comes up with is "No", but there are some trade offs to both systems.

Keep in mind, the masternodes individually MUST be able to respond to requests within a few seconds, therefore a anonymity solution such as TOR/I2P is impossible.

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

2.) Removal of IPS
-Some basic level of anonymity for masternode operators
-Hosts can still be found, it'll just require slightly more work
-Less cost to operate masternodes
-Network as a whole is more slightly more resistant to DDOS
-Will support outbound only masternodes. I.e: How do you attack a node you can't connect to?
-No direct connection to masternodes (DS will be slightly less secure)
-Supports Masternode Blinding

I'm personally leaning toward #1. I don't want Masternode operators to believe their anonymous when they are in fact not at all. They're also incredibly important to the network, so the service must be fast and robust as possible.
Click to expand...



#1
 
It may be more useful to discuss whether we should take the approach of Tor or I2P(d) for the darkcoin network. Whether we should implement it ourselves
or use Tor/I2P is another question that can be discussed later.
 
GermanRed+ said:
I read the Tor setup documentation some time ago and I thought it was not that simple. There are other means to get you on Tor if the setup is not done right. I think SR is a proof of that statement.
Click to expand...

The wallet user doesn't need to do anything else than to run Tor.

Masternodes need to create hidden service and thats it. A masternode is not webserver which can do unpredicted shit and have sql injection vulnerabilities.
 
darkstrike420 said:
The wallet user doesn't need to do anything else than to run Tor.

Masternodes need to create hidden service and thats it. A masternode is not webserver which can do unpredicted shit and have sql injection vulnerabilities.
Click to expand...
But, who knows what other vulnerabilities a masternode may have?

EDIT: To me, I still think it is better if darkcoin will run automatically on Tor/I2P network (or its own implement) without even installing anything. That's why I wonder if I2Pd can provide some library and API to the programmer and you just write an application that use the library and forget about running extra daemon such as I2P.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GermanRed+ said:
But, who knows what other vulnerabilities what a masternode may have?
Click to expand...

To deanonymize a hidden service you need a RCE or the hidden service must somehow willingly connect to clearnet without Tor or willingly send its IP address over to you.

If a masternode has a RCE vulnerability then there are more things to worry about than deanonymization such as full server takeover and fund stealing.

Edit: I am glad you asked this :)
 
moli said:
I might be totally off here but I'm thinking if there's a way for Evan to create DRK own Tor hidden services, allow Masternode owners to have a choice to use Tor if they want anonymity, and also allow DRK users to have the same choice. It would be nice to have a network with both Tor-hidden-services and no-Tor-hidden-services mechanisms.
Click to expand...

I agree with moli, it would be great to have both, but I definitely rather option 1 than pushing everyone onto the tor network.I mean for a start how many users and masternode operators would be capable of such a move? I'm guessing not many even if the technical details are sorted out perfectly.

The real question is if Masternodes can cooperate while simultaneously on the clearnet and while behind some kind of obfuscation. i'm guessing this comes down to latency and identification issues(perhaps a masternode version of the transmission control protocol? M-TCP with M-IPs:p). Then what kind of changes would this require, if any new potential vulnerabilities would be opened and how much time is going to be devoted to this.

Opposed to actively developing Darkcoin to adapt to the tor network today and worrying about future political/legal issues/NSA overlords.
 
I believe it's best we focus on IP obfuscation of users sending coins right now and revisit this topic later on with speed results of nodes running through TOR from Evan.
 
I'm not sure why we're talking about TOR b/c TOR screams ANTI-ADOPTION by the masses
 
If there could be a way for TOR or TOR like service to be implimented seamlessly without the user knowing about it - or I should say , without the user having to take a lesson in programming - I'd be all for it

DRK needs to be something my grand-mother can use, eventually

DRK >on
Send / Receive DRK
DRK >off
 
MangledBlue said:
I'm not sure why we're talking about TOR b/c TOR screams ANTI-ADOPTION by the masses
Click to expand...

Face it. Darkcoin will never be ussed by masses. Only criminals and investors eyes catch Darkcoin.

MangledBlue said:
If there could be a way for TOR or TOR like service to be implimented seamlessly without the user knowing about it - or I should say , without the user having to take a lesson in programming - I'd be all for it

DRK needs to be something my grand-mother can use, eventually

DRK >on
Send / Receive DRK
DRK >off
Click to expand...

Using Tor is easier than using a cryptocurrency. You must be dropped on the head when u were born to be incapable of using Tor.

But ya.. Ur right. Adding Tor totally screams anti-adoption. You know what else screams anti-adoption? Anonymous money.

Open your eyes man. Darkcoin will be made illegal once all markets start using it. Darkcoin will only be associated with Dark markets. Ironically, Darkcoin - DarkMarket.

Look at it bro. The press and government are totally all over Bitcoin that it helps criminals and terrorists to launder money and shit. What will they say once they've heard about anonymous money man? Darkcoin helps criminals and terrorists, Bitcoin is just a piss in the sea compared to Darkcoin when it comes to illegal activities.

Evan was first to make instant transactions. Bitcoin will soon follow. Bitcoin will never add coinjoin at protocol level because anonymous money = no adoptation. Anonymous money = illegal. Anonymous money = crime.

Better make it the best crime e-cash you can so the price skyrockets and everyone has profited their balls off.
But saying Tor = no mass adoptation when it comes to anonymous cash is .. i won't comment.

Tor = more anonymity = more adoption to the who need anonymous cash = price skyrocket = profit $$$$$$$. Darkcoin needs to be as anonymous as possible at every perspective. Isn't that the only difference to Darkcoin from Bitcoin?

Having clearnet IP addresses all over the place definitely is not perfection. Think about the headlines.. "Not only no one can track your transactions but also no one even knows you're using it. That's how anonymous Darkcoin is". Doesn't it sound so fucking amazing?

TL;DR; (U rly should though) Those who need anonymous cash already know what is Tor and how to use it and are probably already using it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
darkstrike420 said:
Face it. Darkcoin will never be ussed by masses. Only criminals and investors eyes catch Darkcoin.



Using Tor is easier than using a cryptocurrency. You must be dropped on the head when u were born to be incapable of using Tor.

But ya.. Ur right. Adding Tor totally screams anti-adoption. You know what else screams anti-adoption? Anonymous money.

Open your eyes man. Darkcoin will be made illegal once all markets start using it. Darkcoin will only be associated with Dark markets. Ironically, Darkcoin - DarkMarket.

Look at it bro. The press and government are totally all over Bitcoin that it helps criminals and terrorists to launder money and shit. What will they say once they've heard about anonymous money man? Darkcoin helps criminals and terrorists, Bitcoin is just a piss in the sea compared to Darkcoin when it comes to illegal activities.

Evan was first to make instant transactions. Bitcoin will soon follow. Bitcoin will never add coinjoin at protocol level because anonymous money = no adoptation. Anonymous money = illegal. Anonymous money = crime.

Better make it the best crime e-cash you can so the price skyrockets and everyone has profited their balls off.
But saying Tor = no mass adoptation when it comes to anonymous cash is .. i won't comment.

Tor = more anonymity = more adoption to the who need anonymous cash = price skyrocket = profit $$$$$$$. Darkcoin needs to be as anonymous as possible at every perspective. Isn't that the only difference to Darkcoin from Bitcoin?

Having clearnet IP addresses all over the place definitely is not perfection. Think about the headlines.. "Not only no one can track your transactions but also no one even knows you're using it. That's how anonymous Darkcoin is". Doesn't it sound so fucking amazing?

TL;DR; (U rly should though) Those who need anonymous cash already know what is Tor and how to use it and are probably already using it.
Click to expand...
This post perfectly sums up why Darkcoin should avoid any association whatsoever with TOR and its pot-addled denizens like the plague.
 
If your SO anti-DRK then why don't you sell all your DRK and move on

I just don't understand why you would put so much engery into something you see as a failure
 
I still vote #1

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
 
darkstrike420 said:
The wallet user doesn't need to do anything else than to run Tor.

Masternodes need to create hidden service and thats it. A masternode is not webserver which can do unpredicted shit and have sql injection vulnerabilities.
Click to expand...
I think this can be done without waiting for new version. Just need some MN to create hidden service in TOR and list their address somewhere together, then TOR user can start their wallet and just connect to any selected MN's hidden service to make their most private transaction to MN.
Is this possible?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top