Which Masternode model should we implement?

GermanRed+ said:
I think we do not have a lot of resources to have both Tor and I2P because we need to consider the maintenance. So, it will be good to have a testing phase of both. For instance, first round on Tor and second round on I2P with the same number of participants. Need to take the smaller number of nodes on I2P in the comparison of results.

Once we decide the software design, I think we should integrate the onion or garlic routing into darkcoin so that it is easy for the majority of users to use and no configuration is needed. We should make use of the current Tor or I2P network. It seems I2P is more a natural choice because we do not want to go down with Tor if its centralized directory auth servers are gone.

EDIT: But, we may take the onion routing from Tor and implement our own decentralized directory auth servers. Whatever our developers find out work best for us.
Click to expand...

I2P is the way to go but Tor is fine for 1-2 years. I don't know why some members think it would be better to create your own solution inside Darkcoin. I2P is not a product, its a service just like Darkcoin. It can live on without current coders. If anything, I think Evan should help the I2Pd(C++ version of I2P) developers instead of creating his own as there is really absolutely no point.

Look at it this way: The only reason for using an anonymizing service is so outsider does not know you're using a specific service. When you connect to VPN then the outsider sees the VPN. If you connect to Tor or I2P then the outsider sees Tor and I2P respectively. If Darkcoin was to develop their own service specifically for Darkcoin then outsider would see that you are connecting to somekind of Darkcoin service(take a good guess, what are the odds you're using darkcoin wallet or masternode).

Now we have come to the conclusion that its better to use something completely irrelavent from Darkcoin such as I2P (in best case) and Tor (in worst-easier-to-implement-and-use-yet-centralized case).

Hosting a proxy/vpn/whatever inside Darkcoin network is good though as long as Darkcoin is not illegal, but we need to use a different service from Darkcoin to anonymize the whole network.

I wait for all supporters of own Darkcoin implementation to shoot up some real arguments.

Edit: Using both Tor and I2P is not needed. Pick one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
darkstrike420 said:
I2P is the way to go but Tor is fine for 1-2 years. I don't know why some members think it would be better to create your own solution inside Darkcoin. I2P is not a product, its a service just like Darkcoin. It can live on without current coders. If anything, I think Evan should help the I2Pd(C++ version of I2P) developers instead of creating his own as there is really absolutely no point.

Look at it this way: The only reason for using an anonymizing service is so outsider does not know you're using a specific service. When you connect to VPN then the outsider sees the VPN. If you connect to Tor or I2P then the outsider sees Tor and I2P respectively. If Darkcoin was to develop their own service specifically for Darkcoin then outsider would see that you are connecting to somekind of Darkcoin service(take a good guess, what are the odds you're using darkcoin wallet or masternode).

Now we have come to the conclusion that its better to use something completely irrelavent from Darkcoin such as I2P (in best case) and Tor (in worst-easier-to-implement-and-use-yet-centralized case).

Hosting a proxy/vpn/whatever inside Darkcoin network is good though as long as Darkcoin is not illegal, but we need to use a different service from Darkcoin to anonymize the whole network.

I wait for all supporters of own Darkcoin implementation to shoot up some real arguments.

Edit: Using both Tor and I2P is not needed. Pick one.
Click to expand...
I completely agree that we do not need something completely re-implemented. There are APIs from I2P/d so I believe writing a darkcoin MN/client that connect directly to I2P/d and IPv4/6 simultaneously is possible. The darkcoin users do not really need to know anything about I2P. We should evaluate the bandwidth and latency of darkcoin on Tor and I2P before making the final decision. If we need something that works like Tor (remember Tor's client is faster but because I2P must run as full node), we may take whatever makes Tor client low bandwidth overhead from Tor and the distributed network database from I2P. I would imagine darkcoin clients to work as Tor clients while darkcoin MN network works as I2P network.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GermanRed+ said:
I completely agree that we do not need something completely re-implemented. There are APIs from I2P/d so I believe writing a darkcoin MN/client that connect directly to I2P/d and IPv4/6 simultaneously is possible. The darkcoin users do not really need to know anything about I2P. We should evaluate the bandwidth and latency of darkcoin on Tor and I2P before making the final decision. If we need something that works like Tor (remember Tor's client is faster but because I2P must run as full node), we may take whatever makes Tor client low bandwidth overhead from Tor and the distributed network database from I2P. I would imagine darkcoin clients to work as Tor clients while darkcoin MN network works as I2P network.
Click to expand...

I2P clients don't need to run as a full node. They're configured that way by default but you can turn on "Hidden mode" that way you don't contribute any bandwidth to the network at all. Its better ofcourse to contribute bandwidth so the network is faster and more anonymous, and you're not a leecher.

Edit: I forgot to mention that there is no risk of running as a full I2P node. Your IP won't be used as an out-to-clearnet traffic because I2p is not an out-proxy. Running as a Tor (any)-node is a risk because your IP is in the public relay list which usually gets banned from a lot of services and marked as spam. With I2P such case doesn't exist because there is no public list(i2p nodes find other nodes on their own) and you're only contributing traffic to other hidden services.
 
darkstrike420 said:
I2P clients don't need to run as a full node. They're configured that way by default but you can turn on "Hidden mode" that way you don't contribute any bandwidth to the network at all. Its better ofcourse to contribute bandwidth so the network is faster and more anonymous, and you're not a leecher.
Click to expand...
Thanks for pointing that out. My mistake.

EDIT: I don't know if I should mention another coin here. There is one coin that works on both Tor and I2P network. While I don't think its performance statistics will make complete sense to darkcoin (since we have darksend and InstantX), it is a good reference.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GermanRed+ said:
Thanks for pointing that out. My mistake.

EDIT: I don't know if I should mention another coin here. There is one coin that works on both Tor and I2P network. While I don't think its performance statistics will make complete sense to darkcoin (since we have darksend and InstantX), it is a good reference.
Click to expand...

I think you can mention altcoins. Darkcoin is the supreme overlord anyway.
 
I still think that buffering MNs from easy identity and location, hiding their IPs, is important.

I'll draw, once again, from the deep pool of knowledge I have on the subject of firearms and firearms laws...

In 1986, Machine Guns were banned. You might wonder how that can be true with all the talk of so-called "assault weapons." But, that's a different lie to dissect.

The point is that in 1934, the NFA was created as planned for by Prohibition. Instigate violence to promote gun control. Do you think anyone suspected that, in 1986, Machine Guns registered in the NFA would be completely banned altogether? Not even one single time was a registered NFA Machine Gun used in any crime, anywhere, ever. But they made them illegal anyway.

And to this day, banning more guns depends upon fooling stupid no information voters into thinking that ban never happened and somehow needs to be created... Even though there was never any excuse for it in the first place.

Look at the misinformation spread about BitCoin being anon devil money... Prohibition of "drugs are bad, mkay"

We're striking at a root far more fundamental to government than it's desired monopoly on force, a.k.a. guns. We're striking at the previously impossible to cut umbilical that ties money and government. Separation of Money and State. Privacy enforcement in an age of guv using the cloud and your iPhone against you at will without warrant...

You've gotta be smoking some real good shit not to think that DRK is more of a threat than Machine Guns, in the eyes of guv. To have no plan of any kind to screen MNs from identification is foolish in the extreme. There wasn't even a single example of a crime committed with a Machine Gun on the NFA registry. DRK, crypto in general, is a much bigger threat... You're stupid if you don't think it's going to be banned and operators attacked and killed. Even today, gun-owners who have committed no crimes at all disappear without a trace regularly.

Add it up... There needs to be at least a back burner plan to obfuscate MNs or there aren't going to be any MNs. If there are no MNs, there's no DRK.

Latency on a restricted-use single-purpose onion router style network would be nowhere near as bad as on TOR. And to settle the matter, as an outproxy, TOR is sound. The rendezvous system for hidden services is ad-hoc and broken from the day it was invented. I use TOR a lot, but I don't fanboy about the things it isn't good for.

DRK's MNs are the ultimate hated target of guv. As soon as they get smart enough to realize what it is, there will be nothing they want to destroy more. If the MNs can't hide and remain functional, it won't matter how defiant the owner is once his node is shut down and his ass is in prison or dead.

There needs to be a continuing thought on how to hide MN identifying data. The need for it is not a matter of if, but when. It is inevitable. The day will come. Will DRK have an answer?
 
camosoul said:
I still think that buffering MNs from easy identity and location, hiding their IPs, is important.

I'll draw, once again, from the deep pool of knowledge I have on the subject of firearms and firearms laws...

In 1986, Machine Guns were banned. You might wonder how that can be true with all the talk of so-called "assault weapons." But, that's a different lie to dissect.

The point is that in 1934, the NFA was created as planned for by Prohibition. Instigate violence to promote gun control. Do you think anyone suspected that, in 1986, Machine Guns registered in the NFA would be completely banned altogether? Not even one single time was a registered NFA Machine Gun used in any crime, anywhere, ever. But they made them illegal anyway.

And to this day, banning more guns depends upon fooling stupid no information voters into thinking that ban never happened and somehow needs to be created... Even though there was never any excuse for it in the first place.

Look at the misinformation spread about BitCoin being anon devil money... Prohibition of "drugs are bad, mkay"

We're striking at a root far more fundamental to government than it's desired monopoly on force, a.k.a. guns. We're striking at the previously impossible to cut umbilical that ties money and government. Separation of Money and State. Privacy enforcement in an age of guv using the cloud and your iPhone against you at will without warrant...

You've gotta be smoking some real good shit not to think that DRK is more of a threat than Machine Guns, in the eyes of guv. To have no plan of any kind to screen MNs from identification is foolish in the extreme. There wasn't even a single example of a crime committed with a Machine Gun on the NFA registry. DRK, crypto in general, is a much bigger threat... You're stupid if you don't think it's going to be banned and operators attacked and killed. Even today, gun-owners who have committed no crimes at all disappear without a trace regularly.

Add it up... There needs to be at least a back burner plan to obfuscate MNs or there aren't going to be any MNs. If there are no MNs, there's no DRK.

Latency on a restricted-use single-purpose onion router style network would be nowhere near as bad as on TOR. And to settle the matter, as an outproxy, TOR is sound. The rendezvous system for hidden services is ad-hoc and broken from the day it was invented. I use TOR a lot, but I don't fanboy about the things it isn't good for.

DRK's MNs are the ultimate hated target of guv. As soon as they get smart enough to realize what it is, there will be nothing they want to destroy more. If the MNs can't hide and remain functional, it won't matter how defiant the owner is once his node is shut down and his ass is in prison or dead.

There needs to be a continuing thought on how to hide MN identifying data. The need for it is not a matter of if, but when. It is inevitable. The day will come. Will DRK have an answer?
Click to expand...

This right here is straight up for real. You understand perfectly what is Darkcoin and what will happen to it in the future.

I myself can't comment on Tor hidden services and I've heard that I2P's hidden services are so much more better from core design. Lets get Tor implemented first and then we can talk about moving to I2P when the I2Pd client has matured enough. We should look in-to moving to I2P when we see a Tor-Browser style I2P browser by PrivacySolutions.no(developers of that browser and i2pd).

I hope Darkcoin-Electrum gets finished soon. Tails(anonymous operating system) implemented Bitcoin-Electrum and it would be nice to see Darkcoin there too as Darkcoin totally matches the purpose of Tails.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe slightly off-topic, but I think we will need a tool that will scan the block chain and generate fake logs that look legit as if they were logs from a masternode.

One concern I've seen going around is that masternode logs will become valuable and masternode owners will start selling them when the price is right. Whether you think this will actually happen or not does not mean such a tool would be useful if not for anything else, but to ease those concerns.
 
illodin said:
Maybe slightly off-topic, but I think we will need a tool that will scan the block chain and generate fake logs that look legit as if they were logs from a masternode.

One concern I've seen going around is that masternode logs will become valuable and masternode owners will start selling them when the price is right. Whether you think this will actually happen or not does not mean such a tool would be useful if not for anything else, but to ease those concerns.
Click to expand...

Besides the fact that I don't see the value of a log going up that much nothing can prevent someone from logging whatever messages his Masternode gets.
 
I asked the question some time back whether anything in the logfile could be of use to a malicious party and never got an answer. I assumed that was due to one or more of the following:

1. It was a stupid question
2. Nobody knew
3. Nobody wanted to admit that there might be
4. Anyone who knew had me on ignore

:confused:
 
thelonecrouton said:
4. Anyone who knew had me on ignore
Click to expand...

This! :tongue:

I haven't looked closer into the log for a while, but last time there wasn't any information there which wasn't also available on elbereth's site.

InstantX locking messages are new, and maybe some messages have more detail now...but until proven otherwise I'm not concerned.
 
crowning said:
I haven't looked closer into the log for a while, but last time there wasn't any information there which wasn't also available on elbereth's site.

InstantX locking messages are new, and maybe some messages have more detail now...but until proven otherwise I'm not concerned.
Click to expand...

I don't mean the debug.log file, but custom built masternode logging everything. The fake log could take random denomination transactions from the blockchain and randomize some IP's to make it impossible to know which log is real and which is not.
 
camosoul said:
You've gotta be smoking some real good shit not to think that DRK is more of a threat than Machine Guns, in the eyes of guv. To have no plan of any kind to screen MNs from identification is foolish in the extreme. There wasn't even a single example of a crime committed with a Machine Gun on the NFA registry. DRK, crypto in general, is a much bigger threat... You're stupid if you don't think it's going to be banned and operators attacked and killed. Even today, gun-owners who have committed no crimes at all disappear without a trace regularly.

Add it up... There needs to be at least a back burner plan to obfuscate MNs or there aren't going to be any MNs. If there are no MNs, there's no DRK.
Click to expand...

I support this view, being both gun and DRK owner.

In my country (Ukraine), govt imposes mad currency controls. So even with $-deficit economy I can't get USD onto my account w/o contract, reviewed by a bank, letters of acceptance and all this shit. Having an account outside the country requires a National Bank license (=prohibited).

So I can easily imagine both guns and DRK with all other cryptotokens and Tor and i2p banned and made illegal. Good that they can't switch off the internet.

Thus, I'd support a movement towards hiding the identity of MN owners, though I don't feel it being very urgent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top