GermanRed+
Active member
What if the goal of an attacker is to reveal who you are rather than bring the network down? I think the goal of being anonymous is one while protecting the network is another goal.
Which Masternode model should we implement?
- Thread starter eduffield
- Start date
What if the goal of an attacker is to reveal who you are rather than bring the network down? I think the goal of being anonymous is one while protecting the network is another goal.
darkstrike420
Active member
Good luck ddosing 3 pools which owners are rich as fuck and totally able to aford $1000/month anti-ddos services compared to masternode operators who are not willing to pay more than 10$/month on hosting because its not cost-effective.
There are good services which offer Anti-ddos for up to 500 Gbit/s and more. Now these 3 pools use 3 different anti-ddos with each 500 Gbit/s. You need 1500 Gbit/s to down these pools. Where dafuq will u get 1500 Gbit/s? It will be more expensive than riding EUR1000/night hookers everyday.
On paper you sound correct, in reality you're wrong.
GermanRed+
Active member
What if the goal of an attacker is to reveal who you are rather than bring the network down? I think the goal of being anonymous is one while protecting the network is another goal.
GermanRed+
Active member
Here is my logic:
We want to use an anonymous coin to protect our privacy. That does not mean we are criminals. Criminals want to be anonymous too. So,
we =/= criminals
drk users = we + criminals
So, in the long run, we still should plan for protecting the MNs.
We want to use an anonymous coin to protect our privacy. That does not mean we are criminals. Criminals want to be anonymous too. So,
we =/= criminals
drk users = we + criminals
So, in the long run, we still should plan for protecting the MNs.
I do not see it like that at all !!
I am public with my name and everything and would have obviously not done that
thinking like
we =/= criminals
DRK is an open source project
the Dev Team is not responsible for any action taken by the coins
MN's are just supporting the tech and network
nothing else !
you are watching way too many hollywood movies i think
I am paranoid enought , but this is just way over the top !
GermanRed+
Active member
I am wondering what will happen if we have the following setup with our current darkcoin software:
( other drk clients and drk MNs on clearnet )==internet==( drk client 1 )==intranet==( drk MN 1 )==internet==( other drk clients and drk MN on darknet )
What will happen when drk client 1 sees a drk MN 1 on the intranet?
( other drk clients and drk MNs on clearnet )==internet==( drk client 1 )==intranet==( drk MN 1 )==internet==( other drk clients and drk MN on darknet )
What will happen when drk client 1 sees a drk MN 1 on the intranet?
GermanRed+
Active member
Two points:
1. I doubt pool owners are as 'rich as fuck' and spending $1000/month on DDOS protection.
2. The killer governments you talk about wouldn't piss about DDOSing them anyway, they'd locate them and physically shut them down. At a cost of peanuts. A phonecall to the service provider would probably do it. "Hi, this is the CIA. Cease provision to blahpool immediately or we will swing on by and FUBAR you."
darkstrike420
Active member
Because Governments have suceeded to locate and shutdown Agora and Evolution.
Why do u keep talkin out of your ass boy?
So your cunning plan is to move pools and miners too to a network funded by the US govt.?
darkstrike420
Active member
What this has to do with anything? If you want to continue bashing Torproject then you should get some credibility by showing vulnerabilities you've personally found. If you cannot then please kindly shut the fuck up (I think I asked you to do this before) and have some respect to coders that are way better than you (Torproject).
Having funding just means Tor coders can work on it everyday as they're rich as fuck and don't need any jobs. It doesn't matter from whom the funding is. You keep forgetting that Tor is open-source.
I think ya lil boy ass is jelly bro.
Darkcoin under Tor can be optional. I think Evan is already doing it according to Github.
Agora and Evolution are on the dark web. Mining pools and miners are not. This is what we were talking about. Try to keep up.
darkstrike420
Active member
Lol the personal issue ur having with me boy can be talked out in PM. No need to shit the thread with ya bs boy.
After reading all 11 pages' discussion, i think i'm still vote for #1. And i want to show my respect that this thread made my day. So many different ideas join together and make many spark here.
IMHO:
- i consider the Darkcoin / Darkcoin network as the future of the crypto-currency.Cypto world is highly technology oriented world, if you stay, you will fail at the end. It's not the replace or something like that. When it happens, it happens.
- Do we really just "Only" have the features like Darksend, InstantX or Masternode in future? If not, these potential services are most likely to build on what? Masternode network?
- A strong, stable and powerful Masternode definitely will become one of our blueprint. And the internet security is just one part of it, maybe that important one. But migrating the whole network to the Tor/I2P is just not OK for me. I think it's just like bypass the problem to solve the problem.
- And i'm very glade we have people like darkstrike420 in the community and i agree with him that it should be take a long time to make final decision.
IMHO:
- i consider the Darkcoin / Darkcoin network as the future of the crypto-currency.Cypto world is highly technology oriented world, if you stay, you will fail at the end. It's not the replace or something like that. When it happens, it happens.
- Do we really just "Only" have the features like Darksend, InstantX or Masternode in future? If not, these potential services are most likely to build on what? Masternode network?
- A strong, stable and powerful Masternode definitely will become one of our blueprint. And the internet security is just one part of it, maybe that important one. But migrating the whole network to the Tor/I2P is just not OK for me. I think it's just like bypass the problem to solve the problem.
- And i'm very glade we have people like darkstrike420 in the community and i agree with him that it should be take a long time to make final decision.
moli
Well-known member
crowning
Well-known member
I have one more general though: dependency!
If Darkcoin depends/relies on external software (be it TOR or I2P or something else) it lives and dies with it. If the maintainers stop maintaining it (maybe they don't want or are not allowed to do it any more. TOR's already forbidden in a couple of countries) Darkcoin will have troubles. The more dependencies, the higher the odds that one breaks.
If we _need_ something like onion-routing we should do it within Darkcoin itself.
If Darkcoin depends/relies on external software (be it TOR or I2P or something else) it lives and dies with it. If the maintainers stop maintaining it (maybe they don't want or are not allowed to do it any more. TOR's already forbidden in a couple of countries) Darkcoin will have troubles. The more dependencies, the higher the odds that one breaks.
If we _need_ something like onion-routing we should do it within Darkcoin itself.
Absolutely agree, whatever is decided upon needs to be integrated, without any external dependencies.
Masternode ops all have to use TOR? Not going to happen. Pools and miners all have to use TOR? Not going to happen. Users all have to use TOR? Not going to happen. Merchants and exchanges all have to use TOR? Not going to happen.
moli
Well-known member
What I understand is .. right now it's impossible to put the whole MN network under Tor, so that topic is out of question now. But any network can build their own Tor hidden services, like someone is doing it right now:
https://github.com/darkcoin/darkcoin/commit/040528dc449e58ffadde53767b29538615fbedaa
eduffield
Core Developer
We can go with #1, but allow users/masternode operators to use Tor if they like. In my opinion, it's a bad idea for us to base our technology off of something already highly scrutinized, it will make the system as a whole much more vulnerable.