• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Poll: MN Operators, please respond

Should we compel the core team to implement an anonymizing layer (i2p, tor etc)

  • Total voters
    72
GrandMasterDash

GrandMasterDash

Well-known member
Masternode Owner/Operator
This subject has come up before but, for several reasons, I think now is a good time to bring it up again.

As you know, we offer an anonymous service to our end users yet with very little protection to the identity and location of MN operators themselves. Yes, some advanced users run through VPNs and so on but, in reality, I'm sure very few MNOs actually do so (convenience, technical ability etc).

Elsewhere, it has been argued - and I think with some validity - that MNOs could be considered complicit in any illegal activity. Right now, we're probably not big enough to be a nuisance to law makers, but it seems to me MNOs could at some point become public enemy number one.. the softest target.

As an MNO, I don't want a target on my back... well, not an easy target. Maybe these anonymizing layers simply delay an inevitable unveiling, but it would at least buy us some time to react to adverse circumstances.

It seems the main argument against an anonymizing layer is performance. While this may be true (though I'm not entirely convinced), it should be balanced against the possible risk of end users losing trust in our MN network. Must we sacrifice MNO anonymity - and therefore trust in our network - simply because all transactions MUST BE INSTANT?

One possible solution might be to run two parallel networks and simply let MNOs, merchants or end users decide the transaction path (instant vs anonymous).

Right now, we're pushing for fiat gateways, but where is the counterbalance?

The way I see it, if we can vote for block size increases then we can also vote for anonymity. Yes, we've discussed this in forums before but we've never formally voted on it. Maybe now is the time to do so?
 
Sooner or later when dash gets a lot bigger, there will be no such thing as anon Masternode or darksend mixing. One way or another guys. Dash will have to cooperate with the gov or it will be shut down. Of course it can stay as it is but then it will never be as big as paypal.
 
one issue with this is it's really reducing the already limited channels for access to the Dash network for end-user devices. For example, in Evolution any user on a browser or mobile can access the p2p network natively (via HTTP) and do SPV without a single-point-of-failure web server in the middle - without public HTTP services how will mainstream users connect to it? That's not to say it couldn't be implemented at a lower level, but then the public services could still be targeted. Another issue is a lot of Evolution is IP based - IPs are used to discover masternode (web) quorums to interact with and lots of other stuff - masternode IP are really the public endpoints that lets us connect the Dash network to the web.
 
AndyDark said:
one issue with this is it's really reducing the already limited channels for access to the Dash network for end-user devices. For example, in Evolution any user on a browser or mobile can access the p2p network natively (via HTTP) and do SPV without a single-point-of-failure web server in the middle - without public HTTP services how will mainstream users connect to it? That's not to say it couldn't be implemented at a lower level, but then the public services could still be targeted. Another issue is a lot of Evolution is IP based - IPs are used to discover masternode (web) quorums to interact with and lots of other stuff - masternode IP are really the public endpoints that lets us connect the Dash network to the web.
Click to expand...

In which case, it's better this is addressed now rather than later when things are more embedded. Technical obstacles, yes, but not impossible. Tbh, we should of addressed this earlier. We should not wait for disaster before we do something about it. Right now we have 52.58% of MNs operating on four centralised cloud services.. this proposal wouldn't change that but it would make it harder to trace and block.

For the end user on mobile (which I'm hoping is priority for the core team), they would have the option to install i2p and then enable it in the client.

I suspect there's general support for this though I fear the core team will try their best to down vote it. But I want to try anyway. If someone could submit this proposal for me, I'll gladly reimburse the five dash. Please, anyone?
 
GrandMasterDash said:
I suspect there's general support for this though I fear the core team will try their best to down vote it. But I want to try anyway. If someone could submit this proposal for me, I'll gladly reimburse the five dash. Please, anyone?
Click to expand...
What is stopping you from submitting it yourself? Why do you ask someone else to do it for you?
 
I've not done it before
I don't want to trip up on calculations, timing and conflicts
And I don't want to trust any keys to dash whale, whatever they say about security
 
GrandMasterDash said:
I've not done it before
I don't want to trip up on calculations, timing and conflicts
And I don't want to trust any keys to dash whale, whatever they say about security
Click to expand...
You don't trust keys to Dash Whale. It just has a tool which makes it about 10x easier than manually creating the proposal. You still have to submit it to the Dash network yourself.
 
GrandMasterDash said:
No one wants to do it for me?
Click to expand...
Putting your name on a proposal is putting your reputation on the line.

If it's your proposal you should really own it, and that means doing all the work that goes with it.

You're asking people to put their name/reputation on there line for you, as well as doing all the calculation/timing work that you don't want to do.

Personally I wouldn't do it even if you paid me because I don't think it's a great idea.

By suggesting that *you* submit it, I was trying to help you get started and running on your own steam if you really believe in the idea. Don't expect someone to do it for you.
 
nmarley said:
Putting your name on a proposal is putting your reputation on the line.

If it's your proposal you should really own it, and that means doing all the work that goes with it.

You're asking people to put their name/reputation on there line for you, as well as doing all the calculation/timing work that you don't want to do.

Personally I wouldn't do it even if you paid me because I don't think it's a great idea.

By suggesting that *you* submit it, I was trying to help you get started and running on your own steam if you really believe in the idea. Don't expect someone to do it for you.
Click to expand...

Bollocks, that's the biggest pile shit I ever heard. I never once said I cared for the credit or shame that someone may or may not associate. I aint here to keep you or anyone else happy. You don't want to do it that's fine, but you don't need to be telling me how I must be feeling just because I wasn't confident doing it myself / wanted some assistance for the first time. You asked me why I didn't do it myself and my answer wasn't good enough for you.
 
GrandMasterDash said:
If someone could submit this proposal for me, I'll gladly reimburse the five dash. Please, anyone?
Click to expand...

This statement from you seems to imply that it's just a matter of someone else just submitting a proposal for you, and getting reimbursed. I was explaining that it's a bit more complicated than that, and thus by extension, your request is also asking more than you may have realised.

GrandMasterDash said:
You don't want to do it that's fine, but you don't need to be telling me how I must be feeling just because I wasn't confident doing it myself / wanted some assistance for the first time. You asked me why I didn't do it myself and my answer wasn't good enough for you.
Click to expand...

Every one who's ever submitted a proposal had to do it for the first time. I didn't have assistance my first (only) time. But I didn't ask for someone else to do it for me either. And I'm pretty sure that instead of asking for "some assistance for the first time", you flat-out asked if someone would do it for you.

Good luck with your idea.
 
nmarley said:
This statement from you seems to imply that it's just a matter of someone else just submitting a proposal for you, and getting reimbursed. I was explaining that it's a bit more complicated than that, and thus by extension, your request is also asking more than you may have realised.



Every one who's ever submitted a proposal had to do it for the first time. I didn't have assistance my first (only) time. But I didn't ask for someone else to do it for me either. And I'm pretty sure that instead of asking for "some assistance for the first time", you flat-out asked if someone would do it for you.

Good luck with your idea.
Click to expand...

First you asked me why I couldn't do it myself and then you went on to preach that I couldn't hold that much conviction if I didn't do it myself ("if you really believe in the idea. Don't expect someone to do it for you"). So why did you ask me then because, whatever I said, you was going to tell me to do it myself anyway, right? You never stopped to think beyond your nose that someone's personal circumstances might be more than you see on the page... if only I gave you a good enough reason, wow is me.

I'm not wasting my time any more arguing with you . It will help to re-enforce your world view that I don't have enough conviction.
 
I can do it through DashWhale if you want). I've already made one proposal about changing X11 algo, so I have nothing to lose in terms of reputation :grin:

Text of the proposal and 5 DASH burn is up to the community though.

TroyDASH said:
Are there any instructions available on how to create a budget proposal *outside* of Dashwhale?
Click to expand...

Here is some info.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SnowHater said:
I can do it through DashWhale if you want). I've already made one proposal about changing X11 algo, so I have nothing to lose in terms of reputation :grin:

Text of the proposal and 5 DASH burn is up to the community though.
Click to expand...


Thank you. I'm going to suggest a slightly updated version of the original post; that the core team should allow MNOs to choose which network they operate through (public IPs or i2p). If anyone here has something to add or specify to this proposal then please let it be known. Also, I'm unsure how much to put for this proposal and the duration so I'd really appreciate some feedback. At the very least, I want this proposal to send a very clear message that there is (or is not) demand for this.
 
I'm completely for MN anonymization in principle but I'm not sure if this is actually doable. Imo to do so we'd have to move the whole network to i2p (not sure if tor is applicable for this purpose at all). I mean not only (some of) masternodes but every single node/wallet out there because otherwise hidden part of the network will not be reachable by normal users (i.e. it will be useless for them) afaik. Of course we could use some bridges sitting on the edge of two networks and relaying messages back and forth but that would weaken network imo - instead of heaving 3500 connection points you'd end up with.. how many? 20? 200? Who will maintain them and why? You can't run them on masternodes because this will make no sense in terms of MNs' anonymization so there should be some volunteers who run them. Or should they be "sponsored" via blockchain maybe? Anyway, having that small number of reachable nodes... You know what will happen then? "DASH IS CENTRALIZED!!" and all that kind of stuff :wink:
I don't know of any good solution so far.

With that being said, how about finding someone else who is willing to do this work instead of compelling the core team to do something? Because you know, trying to compel someone to do smth in an Open Source project... :rolleyes:
 
I can't vote on this because either ALL Masternodes must be anonymous, or none.
Everything in between weakens the network.
To have all Masternodes anonymized would need first some investigations about the consequences (reliability, speed, etc.), then a proper estimation of the efforts, and then a POC implementation to see how the reality looks like.
Sounds interesting, and if I _would_ have the spare time I certainly would give it a go just out of curiosity, without any payment.
But right now I don't have the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top