Re: tor replacement - was Re: Box for simple Tor node.
On Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 07:27:40 PM PDT, other.arkitech wrote: ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 10:41 PM, jim bell wrote: Algorithm-agnostic anonymization network. Let's say we are agreed that a new anonymization network should be implemented. One problem is that advances in such networks generally require implementing entirely new networks to check out new algorithms and new features, such improvements are strongly deterred. After all, that's one reason that TOR doesn't get as many improvements as we might like. (Another reason is that it is financed, at least in part, by people who are hostile to a "too-good" anonymization system.) Sure, we could implement a new set of nodes, hopefully at least 1000 in number. I think that ordinary, residential users should be able to run nodes. Internet services are provided with as much as 1 terabyte/month capacity, and possibly unlimited as well. (CenturyLink 1 Gbps, for example) We could implement a new onion-routing system, akin to TOR but with some improvements, most prominently adding chaff. So far, so good. But there may be other ideas, other improvements that people might want to try out. I've already proposed that it should be possible for just about every node to be an output node. Possibly every node should be an input node, as well. The big impediment to this is that people naturally want to avoid the potential legal harassment they might get if their IP node sent out gigabytes of 'in the clear' forbidden data. My ideas for a solution? Output data could be encrypted, enough to make it unreadable except by the end recipient. The operator of an output node that emits only seemingly-random data would be hard to hold legally responsible for that forbidden content, since nobody expects him to know how to convert it into plaintext. And/or, the data can be output into two streams, which would be XOR'd with each other only by the intended recipient to find the data. And, this network could also run different anonymization algorithms, simultaneously. Onion-routing may have its own limitations. Somebody might have a good idea for an alternative system. Why shouldn't it be possible to serve two algorithms? Or dozens? How about Bittorrent as well? Imagine 1000 nodes, each equipped with a 10-terabyte hard drive? Jim Bell >Hi, >I am preparing a draft of a draft for a spec of what I think would be the >ideal complimentary anonymization overlay that fits on the already running >distributed system I am working on, which is USPS and is very good. It would be great if many ideas arise in this list so we can start focusing a conversation. My personal interes is to achieve a system that can provide Sybil protection for voting systems. Which is the reason Tor cannot be used with USPS, since one could create millions of colluding evil nodes and ditch the system. I limit it using IPv4 because it is very easy to enforce an homogeneously distributed network controlling the maximum number of nodes/votes per IP. This limit will grow as the IPs are filled with voting power. I already have the Sysbil protection implemented and the network of nodes running exchanging encrypted traffic about consensus. The only thing I have left are two things: onion routing (or a faster alternative that doesn't exist but I am researching), chaff traffic. Jim Bell's comments follow: I hope that what I've suggested, an anonymization constellation that can run multiple algorithms simultaneously, is practical and can be implemented successfully. I suppose what I'm describing amounts to multi-tasking, and my understanding is that's not trivial. What does everyone think about this? Can it be done? ...and probably more considerations. I am not expert in anon overlays, but perhaps we can brainstorm so I can become one : ) Thanks for reading OA
Re: tor replacement - was Re: Box for simple Tor node.
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 10:41 PM, jim bell wrote: > Algorithm-agnostic anonymization network. > > Let's say we are agreed that a new anonymization network should be > implemented. One problem is that advances in such networks generally > require implementing entirely new networks to check out new algorithms and > new features, such improvements are strongly deterred. After all, that's one > reason that TOR doesn't get as many improvements as we might like. (Another > reason is that it is financed, at least in part, by people who are hostile to > a "too-good" anonymization system.) > > Sure, we could implement a new set of nodes, hopefully at least 1000 in > number. I think that ordinary, residential users should be able to run nodes. > Internet services are provided with as much as 1 terabyte/month capacity, and > possibly unlimited as well. (CenturyLink 1 Gbps, for example)We could > implement a new onion-routing system, akin to TOR but with some improvements, > most prominently adding chaff. So far, so good. But there may be other > ideas, other improvements that people might want to try out. > > I've already proposed that it should be possible for just about every node to > be an output node. Possibly every node should be an input node, as well. > The big impediment to this is that people naturally want to avoid the > potential legal harassment they might get if their IP node sent out gigabytes > of 'in the clear' forbidden data. My ideas for a solution? Output data > could be encrypted, enough to make it unreadable except by the end recipient. > The operator of an output node that emits only seemingly-random data would > be hard to hold legally responsible for that forbidden content, since nobody > expects him to know how to convert it into plaintext. And/or, the data can > be output into two streams, which would be XOR'd with each other only by the > intended recipient to find the data. > > And, this network could also run different anonymization algorithms, > simultaneously. Onion-routing may have its own limitations. Somebody might > have a good idea for an alternative system. Why shouldn't it be possible to > serve two algorithms? Or dozens? How about Bittorrent as well? Imagine > 1000 nodes, each equipped with a 10-terabyte hard drive? > > Jim Bell Hi, I am preparing a draft of a draft for a spec of what I think would be the ideal complimentary anonymization overlay that fits on the already running distributed system I am working on, which is USPS and is very good. It would be great if many ideas arise in this list so we can start focusing a conversation. My personal interes is to achieve a system that can provide Sybil protection for voting systems. Which is the reason Tor cannot be used with USPS, since one could create millions of colluding evil nodes and ditch the system. I limit it using IPv4 because it is very easy to enforce an homogeneously distributed network controlling the maximum number of nodes/votes per IP. This limit will grow as the IPs are filled with voting power. I already have the Sysbil protection implemented and the network of nodes running exchanging encrypted traffic about consensus. The only thing I have left are two things: onion routing (or a faster alternative that doesn't exist but I am researching), chaff traffic. ...and probably more considerations. I am not expert in anon overlays, but perhaps we can brainstorm so I can become one : ) Thanks for reading OA
Re: Cryptocurrency: USPS
Sent from ProtonMail Mobile On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 3:43 AM, other.arkitech wrote: > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:25 AM, Karl wrote: > >> Hi OA, >> >> I was thinking about how there are a lot of ongoing projects working hard to >> solve these various problems of replacing existing network infrastructure >> with an improvement, keeping users safe and empowering them, etc etc. >> >> There are a _lot_ of experienced software developers on these lists and many >> of us are kind of working in bubbles on our projects, often duplicating each >> others' work. >> >> Would you be at all interested in moving towards sharing effort and >> interoperability with others, even merging codebases if a roughly identical >> project were going on? > > Yes I am interested on the idea. > I like the bubble style because i think it is more efficient many times. A > head, a codebase. > Working on multiple products, (as many as devs), is the recipe for avoiding > conflicts and byzantine discussions, and generating an army of competitive > products. > It is great to exchange help, work, pieces of code, etc in a "I work for your > project and you work for my project" or something alike > > I'll be around : ) > > A really major current effort is gnunet https://gnunet.org/ which modularizes > p2p networking functions for reuse, as local services that provide them I > believe. It's very powerful but very few projects are using it; setup and a > verbose learning curve might be an entry barrier, unsure. > >> K >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2020, 6:40 AM other.arkitech >> wrote: >> >>> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. >>> >>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >>> On Monday, May 11, 2020 9:56 AM, grarpamp wrote: >>> > I am not afraid of IP4, the resource is already scarce and their cost > provides a good measure against attackers that are not The Man. They have almost zero cost. Any retard can botnet hundred thousand of computers IP and proxy them ports all back to farm of pi's / emulators. Any govt can use all its thousands of worldwide residents embassy and military staffs to get worldwide IP's pools without even any sneaky attacks like abusing secret FVEY++ peers to give them IP proxy of unused addresses from networks too. But no, USPS cannot give user ability to overlay network exit for help ensure their privacy, because only IPv4 is "safe" for USPS. Bitcoin have many many privacy overlay users, even full mining nodes on overlay for their privacy, do you see it be not "safe" for Bitcoin network, any real incident of that, from even day one to now. >>> >>> This project is about solving the system: >>> A) without PoW, which consumes too much energy and induce to >>> centralization (network shrink) and territorial segregation forces >>> B) without PoS, or any other Po* I've considered during my design (e.g. >>> biased cryptoeconomy, e.g. PoS allows mining to those who have more wealth) >>> >>> I encourage you to find another available scarce resource that meets the >>> criteria of being unbiased and I'll consider it to be used instead of >>> taking advantage of the scarcity of IPv4 addresses. >>> >>> Additionally, all criticism towards USPS related to anonymity goes to a >>> proper overlay layer compatible with such rule. >>> Tor is not valid because is unable to apply the limiting rule. >>> I'll either propose a patch to Tor or develop an anonymity layer in the >>> future, near or far, depending on the priorities of every stage of the >>> project. >>> >>> Hope it serves. >>> > I am not scares about Govs too, since they haven't moved a finger yet > against bitcoin, even though they can. And if they do this network blocking of BTC and USPS, which will going to still be transact... only those on the overlays... which means BTC win USPS die, because USPS not allow user to use privacy overlay. > The public protocol do not need to be encrypted neither in Bitcoin not in > USPS. USPS is running encrypted today though. The fact that Tx or > consensus > protocol goes in clear doesn't affect the pseudaanonymity nor the > privacy. ??? Move to Thailand / China / wherever / everywhere that spies your network wire, builds nice big databases of everything you do on it, use Bitcoin to pay a cleartext tx from your photo ID IPv4 node physical address and Bitcoin address, to cleartext to some online market known Bitcoin address for some weed, or tx/rx a hello Tiananmen 1989 65 in blockchain message data field. Your ass is going to jail, be in database, for long time. In general, all coins should be encrypted and network overlay-able.
Whistleblower Dr. Bright - bibliography vs. secrecy
My new blog post: Whistleblower Dr. Rick Bright's testimony, part 1.5 of 4: bibliography vs. secrecy: http://douglaslucas.com/blog/2020/05/20/rick-bright-whistleblower-testimony-part15/ Along with his whistleblower complaint, Dr. Bright provided to the US Office of Special Counsel evidentiary exhibits (probably totaling 60); the Washington Post published less than half of them (27); where are the rest (33)? He told Congress he'd make them available, but I don't see 'em anywhere, do you? My post explains what to do about it, hack all the things, once you cast invincibility for max spell points or whatever. https://twitter.com/DouglasLucas/status/1263279692640972801 https://twitter.com/DouglasLucas/status/1263286157099495427
Palestinian referendum proposed to UN -- Re: AIPAC: Bernie Sanders "outrageous comment": "I will support the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians"
If Israelis want to avoid the prophecy, they might consider the wisdom of making peace in their own back yard. Iran proposes a Palestinian referendum to the UN: Iranian Supreme Leader Tweets Country Will Support Any Nation That Fights Israel https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/202005201079368465-iranian-supreme-leader-tweets-country-will-support-any-nation-that-fights-israel/ .. "A proposal for a referendum to choose the type of govt for the historical country of #Palestine was registered with the UN as offered by Iran. We say the true Palestinians with Palestinian roots of at least 100 years, and Palestinians living abroad, choose the govt of Palestine." .. On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 01:45:27PM +1100, Zig the N.g wrote: > Bernie Sanders has never attended an AIPAC conference. > > No wonder MSNBC and others are starting to shill for Trump as it "will be > better for the Democrats if Trump is elected than if Bernie is elected". > > And the triggering of (((the mainstream))) begins :D > > > MSNBC's Chris Matthews Suggests 4 More Years Of Trump Better For Dems Than > Sanders Winning White House > > https://www.zerohedge.com/political/msnbcs-chris-matthews-suggests-4-more-years-trump-might-be-better-dems-sanders-winning > > https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/22/msnbcs-chris-matthews-suggests-four-more-years-trump-might-be-better-democratic > > As Sen. Bernie Sanders appeared headed for a decisive victory Saturday in > the Nevada caucuses, MSNBC host Chris Matthews pondered whether President > Donald Trump's re-election might be better for the Democratic establishment > than the Vermont senator's multiracial, multigenerational movement taking > over the party. > > "I'm wondering if Democratic moderates want Bernie Sanders to be > President?" said Matthews. "Maybe that's too exciting a question to raise." > MSNBC host Chris Matthews opines on the state of the Democratic primary. > (Image: screenshot/MSNBC) > > "Do they want Bernie to take over the Democratic Party in perpetuity? > Maybe they'd rather wait 4 years and put in a Democrat that they like," > Matthews added. > ... > > > > Bernie Tells AIPAC Jews to Shove It! > > http://dstormer6em3i4km.onion/bernie-tells-aipac-jews-to-shove-it-rot-in-hell-jew-rats/ > > https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/484294-sanders-wont-attend-aipac-conference-accuses-it-of-providing-platform-for > > ... > Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) blasted the American Israel Public Affairs > Committee (AIPAC) on Sunday in a statement confirming that he would not > attend the pro-Israel organization’s annual conference. > > Sanders tweeted that he would not attend the conference due to AIPAC’s > connection to “leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian > rights,” an apparent reference to the current administration of Israel headed > by Benjamin Netanyahu, whom Sanders has repeatedly criticized in the past. > > “The Israeli people have the right to live in peace and security. So do > the Palestinian people. I remain concerned about the platform AIPAC provides > for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights. For that > reason I will not attend their conference,” he wrote. > > “As president, I will support the rights of both Israelis and > Palestinians and do everything possible to bring peace and security to the > region,” Sanders continued. > > https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1231709011688480768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw > > ... > Senator Sanders has never attended our conference and that is evident > from his outrageous comment. > > Full statement: https://t.co/XDcNKhYXSq > > — AIPAC (@AIPAC) February 24, 2020 > > ... > Jews might have invented communism. > > But it’s Bernie Sanders who will try it for the first time. >
Second American Revolution - State Governors Flee In Terror As Hairstylists Wielding Shears Lead Mass Uprising -- Re: Flu Thread
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 04:02:04PM -0300, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote: > .. State Governors Flee In Terror As Hairstylists Wielding Shears Lead Mass Uprising https://babylonbee.com/news/barbers-and-beauticians-lead-fight-for-liberty .. But hairstylists aren't most people. They have begun what is being called the "Second American Revolution," descending on state capitol buildings wielding scissors, shears, hairdryers, and curling irons. .. "You may take our lives, but you'll never take our salons! FREEDOM!" cried one woman ...
Re: Cryptocurrency: USPS
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:25 AM, Karl wrote: > Hi OA, > > I was thinking about how there are a lot of ongoing projects working hard to > solve these various problems of replacing existing network infrastructure > with an improvement, keeping users safe and empowering them, etc etc. > > There are a _lot_ of experienced software developers on these lists and many > of us are kind of working in bubbles on our projects, often duplicating each > others' work. > > Would you be at all interested in moving towards sharing effort and > interoperability with others, even merging codebases if a roughly identical > project were going on? Yes I am interested on the idea. I like the bubble style because i think it is more efficient many times. A head, a codebase. Working on multiple products, (as many as devs), is the recipe for avoiding conflicts and byzantine discussions, and generating an army of competitive products. It is great to exchange help, work, pieces of code, etc in a "I work for your project and you work for my project" or something alike I'll be around : ) A really major current effort is gnunet https://gnunet.org/ which modularizes p2p networking functions for reuse, as local services that provide them I believe. It's very powerful but very few projects are using it; setup and a verbose learning curve might be an entry barrier, unsure. > K > > On Mon, May 11, 2020, 6:40 AM other.arkitech > wrote: > >> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. >> >> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Monday, May 11, 2020 9:56 AM, grarpamp wrote: >> >>> > I am not afraid of IP4, the resource is already scarce and their cost >>> > provides a good measure against attackers that are not The Man. >>> >>> They have almost zero cost. Any retard can botnet hundred thousand >>> of computers IP and proxy them ports all back to farm of pi's / emulators. >>> Any govt can use all its thousands of worldwide residents >>> embassy and military staffs to get worldwide IP's pools without even >>> any sneaky attacks like abusing secret FVEY++ peers to give them >>> IP proxy of unused addresses from networks too. >>> >>> But no, USPS cannot give user ability to overlay network exit for >>> help ensure their privacy, because only IPv4 is "safe" for USPS. >>> >>> Bitcoin have many many privacy overlay users, even full mining nodes on >>> overlay for their privacy, do you see it be not "safe" for Bitcoin network, >>> any real incident of that, from even day one to now. >> >> This project is about solving the system: >> A) without PoW, which consumes too much energy and induce to >> centralization (network shrink) and territorial segregation forces >> B) without PoS, or any other Po* I've considered during my design (e.g. >> biased cryptoeconomy, e.g. PoS allows mining to those who have more wealth) >> >> I encourage you to find another available scarce resource that meets the >> criteria of being unbiased and I'll consider it to be used instead of taking >> advantage of the scarcity of IPv4 addresses. >> >> Additionally, all criticism towards USPS related to anonymity goes to a >> proper overlay layer compatible with such rule. >> Tor is not valid because is unable to apply the limiting rule. >> I'll either propose a patch to Tor or develop an anonymity layer in the >> future, near or far, depending on the priorities of every stage of the >> project. >> >> Hope it serves. >> >>> >>> > I am not scares about Govs too, since they haven't moved a finger yet >>> > against bitcoin, even though they can. >>> >>> And if they do this network blocking of BTC and USPS, which will going >>> to still be transact... only those on the overlays... which means BTC win >>> USPS die, because USPS not allow user to use privacy overlay. >>> >>> > The public protocol do not need to be encrypted neither in Bitcoin not in >>> > USPS. USPS is running encrypted today though. The fact that Tx or >>> > consensus >>> > protocol goes in clear doesn't affect the pseudaanonymity nor the privacy. >>> >>> ??? Move to Thailand / China / wherever / everywhere that spies your >>> network wire, builds nice big databases of everything you do on it, use >>> Bitcoin to pay a cleartext tx from your photo ID IPv4 node physical address >>> and Bitcoin address, to cleartext to some online market known Bitcoin >>> address for some weed, or tx/rx a hello Tiananmen 1989 65 in blockchain >>> message data field. Your ass is going to jail, be in database, for long >>> time. >>> >>> In general, all coins should be encrypted and network overlay-able.
Re: Cryptocurrency: USPS
Hi OA, I was thinking about how there are a lot of ongoing projects working hard to solve these various problems of replacing existing network infrastructure with an improvement, keeping users safe and empowering them, etc etc. There are a _lot_ of experienced software developers on these lists and many of us are kind of working in bubbles on our projects, often duplicating each others' work. Would you be at all interested in moving towards sharing effort and interoperability with others, even merging codebases if a roughly identical project were going on? A really major current effort is gnunet https://gnunet.org/ which modularizes p2p networking functions for reuse, as local services that provide them I believe. It's very powerful but very few projects are using it; setup and a verbose learning curve might be an entry barrier, unsure. K On Mon, May 11, 2020, 6:40 AM other.arkitech wrote: > > > > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Monday, May 11, 2020 9:56 AM, grarpamp wrote: > > > > I am not afraid of IP4, the resource is already scarce and their cost > > > provides a good measure against attackers that are not The Man. > > > > They have almost zero cost. Any retard can botnet hundred thousand > > of computers IP and proxy them ports all back to farm of pi's / > emulators. > > Any govt can use all its thousands of worldwide residents > > embassy and military staffs to get worldwide IP's pools without even > > any sneaky attacks like abusing secret FVEY++ peers to give them > > IP proxy of unused addresses from networks too. > > > > But no, USPS cannot give user ability to overlay network exit for > > help ensure their privacy, because only IPv4 is "safe" for USPS. > > > > Bitcoin have many many privacy overlay users, even full mining nodes on > > overlay for their privacy, do you see it be not "safe" for Bitcoin > network, > > any real incident of that, from even day one to now. > > This project is about solving the system: > A) without PoW, which consumes too much energy and induce to > centralization (network shrink) and territorial segregation forces > B) without PoS, or any other Po* I've considered during my design (e.g. > biased cryptoeconomy, e.g. PoS allows mining to those who have more wealth) > > I encourage you to find another available scarce resource that meets the > criteria of being unbiased and I'll consider it to be used instead of > taking advantage of the scarcity of IPv4 addresses. > > > Additionally, all criticism towards USPS related to anonymity goes to a > proper overlay layer compatible with such rule. > Tor is not valid because is unable to apply the limiting rule. > I'll either propose a patch to Tor or develop an anonymity layer in the > future, near or far, depending on the priorities of every stage of the > project. > > Hope it serves. > > > > > > I am not scares about Govs too, since they haven't moved a finger yet > > > against bitcoin, even though they can. > > > > And if they do this network blocking of BTC and USPS, which will going > > to still be transact... only those on the overlays... which means BTC win > > USPS die, because USPS not allow user to use privacy overlay. > > > > > The public protocol do not need to be encrypted neither in Bitcoin not > in > > > USPS. USPS is running encrypted today though. The fact that Tx or > consensus > > > protocol goes in clear doesn't affect the pseudaanonymity nor the > privacy. > > > > ??? Move to Thailand / China / wherever / everywhere that spies your > > network wire, builds nice big databases of everything you do on it, use > > Bitcoin to pay a cleartext tx from your photo ID IPv4 node physical > address > > and Bitcoin address, to cleartext to some online market known Bitcoin > > address for some weed, or tx/rx a hello Tiananmen 1989 65 in blockchain > > message data field. Your ass is going to jail, be in database, for long > time. > > > > In general, all coins should be encrypted and network overlay-able. > > >
