Which Masternode model should we implement?
- Thread starter eduffield
- Start date
I did.Hi strix, If you saw an attack maybe it would be wise to send a dev a private message about it to make sure they see it quickly
This may be a dumb question. Do we need to change anything in the source code to run darkcoin on Tor? Isn't there an option that lets you choose IPv4, IPv6 or Tor network? I thought people were running darkcoin with Tor (outproxy?). I remembered there was a howto page on setting up darkcoin with Tor.
This is probably another dumb question, but couldn't the entire DRK system be run as a single large vpn? Is that what a P2P network is? Is this what TOR is?
I think it is more than that. It has the onion routing part besides being p2p.
EDIT: Can we just add the onion routing part to darkcoin? I mean having our own onion routing by making use of the codes in Tor or i2p (if Tor's funding is a worry). Then, we can have some early version that works on both IPv4/6 and our own onion routing network. Then, once it is stable enough, we have another release that works only on our own onion routing network.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think everyone in the discussion of Tor/I2P should read this if he/she hasn't done yet:
https://geti2p.net/en/comparison/tor
EDIT: Perhaps, darkcoin developers can work with I2Pd developers. I thought they were interested in having their own cryptocurrency. They may be interested in working with Evan.
https://geti2p.net/en/comparison/tor
EDIT: Perhaps, darkcoin developers can work with I2Pd developers. I thought they were interested in having their own cryptocurrency. They may be interested in working with Evan.
Just more reading that may interest guys/gals here: https://github.com/pentarh/NameCoin-I2P-Resolver/blob/master/README
This is a better read: http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/anonymizing-networks-tor-vs-i2p/
To sum up, I'd just quote the author's conclusion here:
On a side note, IRC Freenode network does not offer an I2P service, because according to one of the staff members there that, "using an i2p gateway to connect to us (the network) will present the same risks of snooping and other attacks as using exit nodes."
Haven't read it yet but that article is kind of old. Both Tor and I2P have changed quite a bit from 2 yrs ago. I just want to highlight the differences that may be important to us:
Centralized control vs Fully distributed,
Optimized for hidden services,
Bandwidth overhead of being a full peer,
(... fill in whatever you think appropriate)
This one is old too but it explains why NameCoin was integrated into I2P in an experiment:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60879.0
So, if we have darkcoin listening on both IPv4/6 and I2P(resolved by NameCoin), the blockchain won't fork on these different networks. Right?
EDIT: On a second thought, we don't really need NameCoin as a resolver in our case.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60879.0
So, if we have darkcoin listening on both IPv4/6 and I2P
EDIT: On a second thought, we don't really need NameCoin as a resolver in our case.
Last edited by a moderator:
You're reading from an I2P site, of course it has to say it's better. Try to find an objective view, old or new. Sure things could have been changed the last two years but it still depends on the number of users and exit nodes that I2P has less than Tor. I don't know for sure but from a few sites this is the info I've got.
I agree that they may be biased on which is better. However, the differences in design choice can be simple facts. For example, centralized control may prove a point for those against Tor for NSA-like reason. Another example is 'Floodfill peers ("directory servers") are varying and untrusted, rather than hardcoded'. Those are just simple facts about their design choice.
I2P is not lying on their site.
The biggest difference from I2P and Tor is that I2P supports UDP protocol.
I2P is designed to be used as a hidden service not an out-proxy. I2P developers actually recommend Tor for using as an outproxy.
Tor compared to I2P... Tor developers are wasting the funding they get. I2P has none to very little funding and have done a way better job. Tor developers get paid millions of dollars. I wish all this cash would go to I2P developers because they really do deserve it.
But yeah.. Tor is centralized because directory auth servers are indeed hardcoded and if Tor developers stop running them then Tor dies yet I2P lives on without anyone.
As I get it: looks like more users want to use out-proxies to get to restricted Internet services or simply staying anonymous in Internet than to use "in-proxies" to get to hidden services.
And btw by that description I feel like I2P could suit us more - MNs network is a service actually.
So... which one is it that you devs have decided to use? Tor or I2P hidden services?
EDIT: Can we use both? Plus our own VPNs, we'll be really in the dark!
Last edited by a moderator:
No idea :tongue: Actually I'm focusing on some internal optimizations now.So... which one is it that you devs have decided to use? Tor or I2P hidden services?
EDIT: Can we use both? Plus our own VPNs, we'll be really in the dark!
But I have to say that this brainstorming is very interesting and I already learned a lot following this discussion and provided links (tnx everyone
). I can't say that I understand everything that I read there though... I think it still a subject to discuss/test and we have some time hopefully so decision won't happen overnight
I don't understand all of the tech nitty gritty in the discussion but I've learned a lot and appreciate everyone's input here too.No idea :tongue: Actually I'm focusing on some internal optimizations now.
But I have to say that this brainstorming is very interesting and I already learned a lot following this discussion and provided links (tnx everyone
I think it still a subject to discuss/test and we have some time hopefully so decision won't happen overnight
Btw, we were talking about you in IRC a little while ago...
We're lucky to have you. Thanks for all you've been doing!
LOL Thanks! I'm glad to be here tooI don't understand all of the tech nitty gritty in the discussion but I've learned a lot and appreciate everyone's input here too.
Btw, we were talking about you in IRC a little while ago...
We're lucky to have you. Thanks for all you've been doing!
ok, back to topic now
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.So... which one is it that you devs have decided to use? Tor or I2P hidden services?
EDIT: Can we use both? Plus our own VPNs, we'll be really in the dark!
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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:
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
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
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:
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
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