Which Masternode model should we implement?

crowning

Well-known Member
May 29, 2014
1,414
1,997
183
Alpha Centauri Bc
4. Anyone who knew had me on ignore
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.
 

illodin

Member
Apr 26, 2014
122
71
78
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.
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.
 

akhavr

Active Member
Oct 11, 2014
829
412
133
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.
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
 

vertoe

Three of Nine
Mar 28, 2014
2,573
1,652
1,283
Unimatrix Zero One
Spreadcoin is dead. I'm trying to help Darkcoin here. Despite disappearing for whatever reason, the analysts I had review the Spreadcoin code tell me Mr. Spread wrote some very elegant code. If some of it can be of use to Darkcoin, that would be wonderful.
I created a copy of spreadcoin repository in case someone wants to review the code
https://github.com/vertoe/spreadcoin
r.i.p.
 

xxxsexygirls

Member
Nov 26, 2014
44
20
48
So can the entire MN network be DDoSed to death by a botnet due to public IPs?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,871
1,863
1,283
It all comes back to whether or not it's illegal to run a masternode and for nearly all countries, it isn't. Further, unless you are setting your masternode up on a VPS that takes DRK, your anonymity is already compromised. Further, the majority of existing masternodes won't change out their IP addresses so at least half the network would remain "exposed" anyway.

This is on top of the fact that any sort of onion-based routing will increase latency.
I'm most worried about latency. I'm for speed. I think the quality of service should be paramount. If knowing Masternode IP addresses makes the system vulnerable, then that should be addressed. But paranoid thinking that ip addresses will lead to a government seeking masternode owners out and arresting them... well, I just don't see it happening. At least not in the US, I still think we have that much freedom left for a while ;P if they tried to ban crypto-currencies, the reasons they'd have to cite would be a slippery slope indeed.

so um... #1 for me. If we could enforce minimum RAM and CPU power per MN, all the better. IP address sharing wouldn't bother me as long as the RAM and CPU power is up to par for each. I know this isn't possible yet, but it would be great if it could be done :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhkien

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,871
1,863
1,283
Yes. When under Tor or I2P it can still happen but will be much much more expensive and will require a lot more power.
Why is TOR so slow that you can't stream videos etc? I mean (now I'm really ignorant, so please help me understand) doesn't the internet ping info off of millions of computers? Why would streaming off a few more cause latency? Sorry, I really don't understand TOR. In fact, I thought it worked the same way masternode blinding is working... that info just bounced off of other computers, taking on that computer's ip info instead of keeping it's own?

Thanks for any explanation :)
 

GNULinuxGuy

Member
Jul 22, 2014
113
68
78
Dash Address
XjkXfrYTSvdYe4738DtNVX5XfUz7qU9HnY
Why is TOR so slow that you can't stream videos etc? I mean (now I'm really ignorant, so please help me understand) doesn't the internet ping info off of millions of computers? Why would streaming off a few more cause latency? Sorry, I really don't understand TOR. In fact, I thought it worked the same way masternode blinding is working... that info just bounced off of other computers, taking on that computer's ip info instead of keeping it's own?

Thanks for any explanation :)
Networks in general are limited by the bandwidth/latency of every hop along the way, and presently there is little to no financial incentive to run onion routing nodes, much less high performance ones. It's actually pretty surprising the TOR network runs as well as it does. Higher performance nodes may well be attempting to gather information and/or hijack insecure sessions/systems.
 

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,871
1,863
1,283
Thanks GNULinuxGuy, I still hope we could turn the masternode network into a paid tor-like service, though I understand why some people want us to only concentrate on the currency side of things. However, I think that if we have the man power, and as DASH matures and doesn't require so much work for the core currency side of things, that adding value to our network would be a great idea.
 

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,871
1,863
1,283
crowning, I changed my config file to lower case "d" or dash.conf from Dash.conf and it still doesn't open in the wallet. Do you think I might have a setting incorrect in the wallet? Perhaps we need to unlock our wallet to do this?

Also, if you change things there, they won't take effect until the next reboot, right?

Nope, unlocking does not help :( Wonder why my wallet won't do this? Win7

Can everyone one windows please try opening their conf file in the wallet:
Tools => Open Configuration File And let us know if it's working for you? Thanks!
 

crowning

Well-known Member
May 29, 2014
1,414
1,997
183
Alpha Centauri Bc
crowning, I changed my config file to lower case "d" or dash.conf from Dash.conf and it still doesn't open in the wallet. Do you think I might have a setting incorrect in the wallet? Perhaps we need to unlock our wallet to do this?

Also, if you change things there, they won't take effect until the next reboot, right?

Nope, unlocking does not help :( Wonder why my wallet won't do this? Win7

Can everyone one windows please try opening their conf file in the wallet:
Tools => Open Configuration File And let us know if it's working for you? Thanks!
It's not dependent on any wallet setting, it just opens dash.conf with whatever editor is configured on your computer for files with the extension ".conf".
Or, if nothing is configured yet, shows a popup where you can choose with which program the file should be opened.

When you go the folder where dash.conf is located (with Windows Explorer or whatever) and double-click on it the exact same thing is done. What happens when you double-click on dash.conf here?

Another test: another wallet function which use the same (Qt-) call is Tools->Information->Open (Debug Log File). Does this work on your computer?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TanteStefana

Grizzled Member
Foundation Member
Mar 9, 2014
2,871
1,863
1,283
How did I start writing in here? I meant to put that in testing! LOL.

And you found my problem. I never linked notepad++ as the default program to open the file (always right clicked and chose notepad++ because it's right there in the choices) So now I've linked them and of course, it works :) Thanks, and sorry for bringing this up in the wrong thread :)

It's always something stupid with me, thanks for your patience!
 

chatterbox

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Mar 10, 2015
107
78
178
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

.
#1
 

Nthelight

Member
May 15, 2014
48
47
58
IP obfuscation for MN owners always seemed essential to me. I've been waiting for a very long time for this to be implemented. Initially I didn't even want to set up a MN because the IP would be public. Seeing this thread leaning so quickly towards option #1, I strongly believe that this would then remain a significant weakness for the Dash/Darkcoin network.

For what it's still worth, I'm with anyone who understands the need to explore the options to hide the IP of MNs. They may not be perfect and there will be some trade-offs, but to me it certainly seems better than leaving the MN IPs in the open. Seems the reasons to go for option #1 are merely distractors blinding some people from making the fundamentally right choice. The identity of MN owners should be protected to large extent, imho.

Seriously, aren't we basically disclosing the identity of MN owners, to ultimately protect the identity of the sender of a transaction? First anonymous cryptocurrency, except for the second tier enabling the whole anonymous transaction functionality? Isn't this a bit like being a random proxy for a drug deal and then claiming law enforcement is not going to consider going after the proxy?

Also kind of upset that it was initially so easily dismissed. Evan saying "let's go for option #1" after four posts by community members. Doesn't seem like a mature/objective discussion was still desired. It looked like Evan had already decided before asking the community. Looks like somehow this is not considered as a 'must have' anymore? This thread should spark discussion for a long time. We should be learning about what is required to achieve that objective. Researching such a challenging technical topic is difficult, so perhaps we must indeed contact some knowledgeable people from different communities/technologies who could help Dash?

Therefore option #3, disregard the presented #1 and #2 in the OP and come up with a better solution through objectively discussing and assessing the options we have. I'll be reading more in-depth on TOR/I2P asap.
 

Solarminer

Well-known Member
Apr 4, 2015
762
922
163
I'm most worried about latency. I'm for speed. I think the quality of service should be paramount. If knowing Masternode IP addresses makes the system vulnerable, then that should be addressed. But paranoid thinking that ip addresses will lead to a government seeking masternode owners out and arresting them... well, I just don't see it happening. At least not in the US, I still think we have that much freedom left for a while ;P if they tried to ban crypto-currencies, the reasons they'd have to cite would be a slippery slope indeed.

so um... #1 for me. If we could enforce minimum RAM and CPU power per MN, all the better. IP address sharing wouldn't bother me as long as the RAM and CPU power is up to par for each. I know this isn't possible yet, but it would be great if it could be done :)
From what I can tell, the masternodes really don't use much CPU or RAM so I don't see this as a relevant requirement. If you want to ensure fast transactions we should be focusing on connection speed and latency requirements.

I disagree on the idea that the US won't go after IP addresses running nodes. They can claim masternodes support anonymous 'terroristic' transactions(like they are with cash). I strongly believe that IP addresses should be hidden, even if it isn't full anonymity. It just needs to be enough that a specific node can't be tied to an IP address. Maybe the IP addresses are just stored publicly as number/letter string(maybe use the mn key or wallet 0 address). This string/IP relationship could be shown at it's masternode, but no other node could display the relationship. Each masternode would know the actual IPs that were referenced by this string and there should no loss of speed communicating.

Countries may decide to ban communication with certain internet services/ports(think China/Egypt). If the masternodes communicate with a string then this could also be assigned to an IPV6, onion, or tor address and the network could still work. Put a priority on the string to first communicate with IPV4/IPV6 and then onion or tor nodes to keep the network as fast as possible. This could also enable other communication features like anonymous messaging and distributed storage. This may see unrelated, but an anonymous service first requires and anonymous currency and an incentive to run nodes, DASH is perfect for this..

I suggest we use the masternode vote system to determine how this feature is implemented instead of a few dozen forum posts.
 

ScioMind

Member
May 28, 2014
183
73
88
I ABSOLUTELY feel that a HIGH PRIORITY should be placed upon somehow anonymizing the IP/Identity of masternodes.

By simply saying, essentially, "it's much easier to implement other desirable features if we do not to anonymize the masternodes," that is a disincentive to such anonymization. If there were truly NO OTHER WAY then I would agree that the idea of masternode anonymization would need to be abandoned. However, Evan and the entire dev team have proved to be QUITE innovative, and have turned DASH into the most technologically advanced coin, bar none. (It's only a matter of time before everyone else catches on to this, and DASH surges on to surpass even BItcoin in terms of adoption.) If it takes more work, more thought, more time...whatever...this should definitely be implemented.

Sure, masternode operators are incentivized to run masternodes...but how much will such incentivization be worth if/when some govt. decides that masternodes (and their operators) are doing something wrong? Can they consider all operators to be "colluding" or "conspiring" together for some evil purpose? Common sense would say "no," but it is always possible that SOME govt(s). may decide just that...and if you happen to be in their jurisdiction, watch out! Such an event could essentially kill DASH, or at least leave it irrevocably maimed.

Do the right thing...ANONYMIZE THE MASTERNODES...PERIOD...NO EXCUSES.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Solarminer