Which Masternode model should we implement?

eduffield said:
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.
Click to expand...
Will there be a way of blending clearnet and tor masternodes together or will clearnet only be able to see clearnet, tor see tor nodes, or tor see both? And assuming that there is a difference in who can see what, won't that cause potential issues with masternode payee selection as blocks are mined? We don't want to go down the road of forks again due to conflicted masternode selection.
 
@Evan -

AGREED: We can go with #1, but allow users/masternode operators to use Tor if they like.
- - We should not limit ones usage of the system across any "platform".

AGREED: 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.
- - The system does not need any weak link(s) that DRK couldn't/can't ever truly control.


Thx Sir


MB
 
oblox said:
I realize that, but I am asking if it will ultimately cause issues (forking) with how the existing selection is done.
Click to expand...

Hummmm - maybe a MN exit node?
(specialty code)

-Just thinking out loud actually-
 
r-ando said:
So this implementation is no good?
Click to expand...

Those 3 lines worry me:
eduffield said:
it is possible to make your node also reachable from the Tor network.
...
where you're only reachable via Tor, this should suffice
...
If you only want to use Tor to reach onion addresses, but not use it as a proxy for normal IPv4/IPv6 communication
Click to expand...

Fragmentation alert!
 
darkstrike420 said:
Its great actually. You choose if you want Tor or not. Maybe an option to force client to use only Tor masternodes? :)
Click to expand...
The biggest issue I have is the forking by dividing the network between masternodes on Tor and those that aren't. There has to be a way to unify things, from a standpoint of holistic mixing between the two as well as election for payment.
 
like people mentioned: why not create our own Dark-Tor? Using Tor may fix one problem but will create other problems like: fork? dependency? and User friendly?
But if we create our own Dark-Tor by this chance, not only we fix the problem, but also we create so many opportunities like Dark-Tor service? Darkcoin adoption?
In order to gain the Privacy, Evan, Dev-team, and the whole Darkcoin Community invented the Mansternode and Darksend.
In order to make the Daily use possible, We invented the InstantX.
Now, in order to make the Darkcoin Network stronger, i think it's time to activate the Dark-Tor project.

My 2 duff....
 
Raico said:
like people mentioned: why not create our own Dark-Tor? Using Tor may fix one problem but will create other problems like: fork? dependency? and User friendly?
But if we create our own Dark-Tor by this chance, not only we fix the problem, but also we create so many opportunities like Dark-Tor service? Darkcoin adoption?
In order to gain the Privacy, Evan, Dev-team, and the whole Darkcoin Community invented the Mansternode and Darksend.
In order to make the Daily use possible, We invented the InstantX.
Now, in order to make the Darkcoin Network stronger, i think it's time to activate the Dark-Tor project.

My 2 duff....
Click to expand...

Again sounds good on paper. The idea is really good.

But a Tor alternative is a very big project. Does Evan really have the brain power to manage both Darkcoin and a Tor alternative? I think Darkcoin needs to reqruit more developers.

What I am trying to say is.. We can use the way things are now. Those who want additional privacy can run their Masternode and Wallet through Tor. This implementation will be good enough for 1-2 years easily.

I am not saying I would not be interested in a Tor alternative coded in C++. Hell, I would read every single LOC. I hate Tor for the fact that they code in C(The only reason I haven't contributed anything to Torproject except bandwidth). Its as bad as coding the whole project in x86 assembly(which I would still find more pleasurable to read). Their code is a big mess.

I think Evan should do what he is doing now (The Tor thingy) and then focus all his brain power on things that really matter such as Darksend and Instant X. I don't believe Darksend and Instant X are at their final form just yet.
 
darkstrike420 said:
Again sounds good on paper. The idea is really good.

But a Tor alternative is a very big project. Does Evan really have the brain power to manage both Darkcoin and a Tor alternative? I think Darkcoin needs to reqruit more developers.

What I am trying to say is.. We can use the way things are now. Those who want additional privacy can run their Masternode and Wallet through Tor. This implementation will be good enough for 1-2 years easily.

I am not saying I would not be interested in a Tor alternative coded in C++. Hell, I would read every single LOC. I hate Tor for the fact that they code in C(The only reason I haven't contributed anything to Torproject except bandwidth). Its as bad as coding the whole project in x86 assembly(which I would still find more pleasurable to read). Their code is a big mess.

I think Evan should do what he is doing now (The Tor thingy) and then focus all his brain power on things that really matter such as Darksend and Instant X. I don't believe Darksend and Instant X are at their final form just yet.
Click to expand...

Yep, Activate the Dark-Tor project is just some words but it needs HUGE resource behind it to make it real. So that's one reason why i think it's good to have you here. :wink:
And i agree with that Darksend and InstantX should be more polished. As for the network security, i prefer Dark-Tor than Tor~
anyway, we don't need to make quick decision. A fully discussion and a comprehensive attempt definitely may help a lot.

Bed time now. Will catch up tomorrow.
 
IPV6 only masternode's and each masternode get's it's own /8 who's with me?
 
UdjinM6 said:
cmon, while I feel you have some notable knowledge and I'm thankful for your help to make Darkcoin stronger/survive in bad days I would be even more thankful if you could stop talking in such aggressive manner. We are sharing information here with each other, not trying to figure out who is better programmer or smth... You are not making Tor option look better arguing in such way. I would even say otherwise.
Just calm down and lets find the best solution possible weighting every Pros and Cons.
Click to expand...
^^^^^ This is why I heart you guys(girls)
 
Raico said:
like people mentioned: why not create our own Dark-Tor? Using Tor may fix one problem but will create other problems like: fork? dependency? and User friendly?
But if we create our own Dark-Tor by this chance, not only we fix the problem, but also we create so many opportunities like Dark-Tor service? Darkcoin adoption?
In order to gain the Privacy, Evan, Dev-team, and the whole Darkcoin Community invented the Mansternode and Darksend.
In order to make the Daily use possible, We invented the InstantX.
Now, in order to make the Darkcoin Network stronger, i think it's time to activate the Dark-Tor project.

My 2 duff....
Click to expand...

I wonder if coders who worked on Tor might be approachable and interested in contributing to such an effort. For 1 masternodes are still relatively cheap, so any coders wanting in on the project could also invest on the return from their work on the Darkcoin global project in a very effective cost efficient manner by buying 1 or more masternodes. 2 it would probably be something very interesting for them, maybe they would find it a cool idea?

3.... hopefully not the government spook coders lool... Although I'm sure there are some really cool ones there too :)

Maybe call it Private Internet 2.0 with Darkcoin fully integrated
Eventually just call it Internet 2.0...
operated by the masternodes... we had this talk a few times in the past.. Its just a lot of work for devs and probably not the first thing that needs to be done :) But what a beautiful thing

A possibly unpopular thought is that maybe one day a small percentage of masternode-mining fees could go to a wallet operated by the Darkcoin Foundation and Evan. Then the community as a whole could vote on new bounties regularly over time and pay the rewards with those funds. Measurable objectives and achievements that when done and validated by Evan and the Foundation give right to the bounty. Then we start a bounty for creating Internet 2.0 and we start filling the wallet for the bounty :) Eventually, people might start competing to fulfill objectives

Here is a way it could work.

we create a voting list where people can propose Darkcoin objectives. Members of Darkcoin talk vote on which top 10 objectives they would want to see prioritized each month.

The top 10 on the list get an equal share of the bounty funding attributed equally between them.

When new objectives are voted to the top because they become more important, the ones that get pushed down keep the DRK that was put aside for them assigned to them. When they are promoted back to the top 10, we start increasing their bounty again. Now I think that is a cool system :)

And I think it would be an extra way of thanking and rewarding the Devs for their efforts, attracting other Devs with different specialties who have ideas for other features, get the guys competing to work on Darkcoin :) so one day Darkcoin will have a diversified evolving and sustainable product line of anonymous services and options running through the masternodes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
thelonecrouton said:
So your cunning plan is to move pools and miners too to a network funded by the US govt.?
Click to expand...
"Funded by" and "controlled by" are two different things. The Fed. is clearly funded by the U.S. gov, but who is it that does the controlling? It was in the govs interest to develop a system by which its operatives could "phone home" securely, and have exit ramps that they could monitor. Hidden services are simply the cost they are willing to put up with, that vouch for the validity of the system. Much like the DRK markets existing on those same services are the ultimate proof of DRKs viability and show the weakness of BTC, even though Evan (and I) does not approve of them.

While I generally side with you on issues my crusty breaded friend, I'm afraid I'm with DS420 in thinking that open-source code trumps conspiracy theories--at least in this case.:confused:

Edit: I think that Snowden's advocacy of Tails settles the issue for me at least.
 
JGCMiner said:
I see little point in spending money to prove the resistance of a network against an attack that not yet affected that network even on a small scale.

My issue is with people who spout off attack vectors with a low probability of success or are otherwise properly dis-incentivized and waste everyone's time.
Click to expand...
I hesitate to bring this up because I am not sure of its significance, but I suspect that I have already observed either a real attack or testing of the MN network. I hope that someone who understands these things will check out this post and its companion a bit further down the thread:
[ANN] Darkcoin | Darkcoin.io | Creators of x-11, Darksend, DGW, and InstantX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top