/g/ - Technology

install openbsd

[Make a Post]
[X]





Is p2p the ultimate future of the www? Nanonymous No.5758 [D][U][F][S][L][A][C] >>5760 >>5769 >>5838 >>5898
File: 9d0cc10e35046604983421c01b3dae559b75909add7df4f294b42e13f3b16fb2.png (dl) (36.36 KiB)
With the increasing censorship of the clearnet people will eventually migrate to hidden services like TOR. Given enough traffic, TOR may get compromised as well (there's an ongoing debate, as I'm sure you're aware, that it's already a honeypot, but that's not the topic I want to discuss today).
If and when TOR becomes a honeypot, do you think p2p services like Freenet and i2p (or whatever the best option is at the time) will be the go-to networks for hosting freedom-of-speech websites, such as imageboards like this one, and if so, do you see any effective way of p2p networks being either compromesed, or somehow shut down?

Nanonymous No.5760 [D] >>5762
>>5758
p2p networks still expose your IP, and if enough feds become nodes they can log your IP along with the files you're currently seeding.

Nanonymous No.5762 [D] >>5772
>>5760
There's ways to obscure your IP when using p2p and trusted p2p exists.

Nanonymous No.5768 [D]
That has yet to stop any torrent swarm

Nanonymous No.5769 [D] >>5851
>>5758
>do you see any effective way of p2p networks being either compromesed, or somehow shut down?
Let's say if big boys will have the balls to outlaw cryptography and will allow Internet only in a form of a whitelist (you can access only allowed hosts, every other connection gets dropped), p2p as means for exchanging content or whatever will be effectively done for. It would still be possible to exchange information in secret over those channels, but it would be undercover agent tier.

Nanonymous No.5772 [D]
>>5762
What ways? The ones I know of would still either need some form of trust somewhere in the chain, or remain susceptible to compromise given enough resources.

Nanonymous No.5789 [D] >>5852
>balls to outlaw cryptography
Too many services (commercial and government) rely on cryptography so this probably won't happen. Unless they want to ban private or personal cryptography for individuals which would be easy to accomplish against the normies.
>It would still be possible to exchange information in secret over those channels
Apart from general obfuscation and stenography I haven't seen a popular or reliable means of doing this except this one project.
https://telex.cc/

Nanonymous No.5790 [D]
Yes, it should be.

Nanonymous No.5794 [D] >>5838
8chan moved to Zeronet, so maybe P2P is becoming a thing

Nanonymous No.5795 [D] >>5838
08chan is not 8chan

Nanonymous No.5834 [D] >>5838 >>5927
Neither freenet or i2p is protected from sybil attacks too well.
The former is the one that provides actually decentralized communication platforms (as in Frost, FMS) and look how full of garbage it is, you can hardly communicate there at all.

P2p's doomed and so are we. Let's accept and welcome our overlords. Heil google.

Nanonymous No.5837 [D]
Often mentioned problem with p2p swarms like 08chan is that one user uploads cp and now everyone is guilty of possession and distribution of it.

Nanonymous No.5838 [D] >>5843 >>5844
>>5758
>Given enough traffic, TOR may get compromised as well
The more traffic there is in the network, the easier it is to obscure yourself and harder for people to launch attacks against it. Especially if people run non-exit relays more.
>there's an ongoing debate, as I'm sure you're aware, that it's already a honeypot
Not exactly a debate. People just occasionally post shit about it being a project of the US Navy and the string of exploitable things in its design that was found by researchers and (mostly) fixed. The answer to that is no system is 100% secure. You use the best means available and practice OpSec.
>do you think p2p services will be the go-to networks for hosting freedom-of-speech websites
Not in its current state. Look at this board. It's on a mixnet, where it's theoretically easier to stop spam, and a resident schizophrenic hapa can shit it up fairly efficiently.
>topic
ACKSHULLY, at the very top of the current Internet architecture, it is peer to peer - between the largest service providers. And the problem of P2P is mostly manageable up there, save for some retarded countries causing problems with BGP. What we should be concerned about is a P2P system that can't get fucked with too much by average people and doesn't easily buckle under pressure from the glowies. There aren't many of them around and, by its very nature, you need a popular one to obscure the individual. Or you're easier to spot among the 2.5 anons that use SnowlakeNet.
>I2P
Somewhat popular, but development is slow and codebase is split between daemons in 2 languages - C++ and Java. On the plus side, almost all users are also acting as relays and tunnels by themselves are treated as very temporary, as opposed to Tor circuits. Downside is the initial setup of looking for peers and building routes, as well as larger resources needed to run a relay as opposed to Tor.
>GNUnet
About as alpha as the Hurd. It's an ambitious project and still heavy in development, there are no guarantees for you.
>Zeronet
You choose to seed websites, not just mindlessly relay traffic that you cannot decrypt. So the responsibility is on you. I wouldn't even run it over Tor behind seven proxies.
>Lokinet
Apparently somewhat forked from Zeronet, but you just use onion routing to get to websites. Looks promising, but it's still in alpha.

>>5834
>Neither freenet or i2p is protected from sybil attacks too well.
I2P has been working on addressing some attack vectors of Sybil, but they do rate some of their defenses to be "poor", on their very own threat model page. https ://geti2p.net/en/docs/how/threat-model (see Floodfill DoS)
>Freenet
It's more of an encrypted cloud drive where everybody chips in storage space.
>P2p's doomed and so are we
You can't protect yourself against Sybil attacks in 100% of cases in a P2P system. Doesn't mean that it's completely unusable. Just how attacks on the Tor infrastructure don't invalidate its usefulness.

>>5794
Unofficial like >>5795 said and, in the spirit of P2P, the board got shit up and, last I heard about it, people were required to establish an identity via clearnet even if they do Zeronet over Tor. Which put me off it even more.

Nanonymous No.5843 [D] >>5845 >>6408
>>5838
What? I'm pretty sure Lokinet is forked from Monero, which is an i2pd fork itself.

Nanonymous No.5844 [D] >>5845
>>5838
>you need a popular one to obscure the individual. Or you're easier to spot among the 2.5 anons that use SnowlakeNet.
could not this be solved by using non-clearnet transport layer? for example tor could be used to connect the peers, at least as a bootstrap solution until snowflakenet gets momentum and enough users. At this point I don't care about the speed or latencies, just have censorship-free p2p that actually works and provides minimum [ano/pseudo]nymity. Then, if every peer would essentially be a hidden service you don't have to deal with public/private ip, unpnp, reflection servers and all that shit.
This could also use different transport layers at the same time, like some peers are on tor, some on i2p. Not sure if this would make any traffic correlation harder or easier tho

Nanonymous No.5845 [D]
>>5843
You're right, I'm retarded. *Website* source is forked from Zeronet. That's what I get for speedreading.

>>5844
>could not this be solved by using non-clearnet transport layer? for example tor
Somewhat. You'd have a lot of problems with forged identities though, and people trying to fill the network with their own peers sitting on the same beefy server. For example, I2P seems to isolate routers by priority when they're on the same address space, to prevent tampering attempts. You wouldn't be able to do that, just like you can't IP/range ban posters on Nanochan. Of the things mentioned in this thread, I think only Zeronet and Freenet work over Tor.
>just have censorship-free p2p that actually works and provides minimum [ano/pseudo]nymity
I2P seems alright, especially if you don't care about latency. If hosting at a physical location is out of question, I guess you could keep a relay on a VPS or remote machine with an onion address and use an SSH tunnel to access it.

Nanonymous No.5851 [D]
>>5769
Overnets built from steganography would become the meal du jure.

Nanonymous No.5852 [D]
>>5789
>stenography
That is what a court reporter does. What you really meant was steganography.

Nanonymous No.5898 [D]
>>5758
It depends what you mean. If you mean the world wide web that most people access, then no. That's just going to be slowly boiled down to a few select sites (facebook, google, reddit) that are in control of everything. If you mean what we think of as the world wide web, something vast and unexplored, with freedom of information, then yes, I believe p2p is ultimately the future. I don't think the answer is freenet or 0net though, and i2p is >java tier. Probably it will come in the form of something like IPFS. I know there was work done on imageboard software for it, called smugchan. You can still find it on github, though it seems to have unfortunately been abandoned for the time being.

Nanonymous No.5903 [D]
the fact that niggers bring up sybil attacks all the time is hilarious. it doesn't fucking matter. if you have any opsec, they wont effect you, and if you have zero opsec, well fuck you p2p is coming to replace your shitweb anyway. now mirror my content for me and stop making shitty ad-driven websites since you have no excuse for hosting expenses anymore

Nanonymous No.5910 [D] >>5912 >>6032
Tor + i2p is the future. People should have been on Tor all along. Now that some people are catching up and hosting onion services we can finally leave these big companies behind.

You cannot be deplatformed if you are on your own server with a tor onion service address instead of a regular domain.

The people posting about being censored are just too lazy to fucking run their own hidden service or pay someone to do it. All these infowarriors bitching about being deplatformed and shit makes me lol. Alex jones was too lazy to use Tor or peertube. he thought he was fucking entitled to a handout.

Nanonymous No.5912 [D][U][F] >>5916
File: 20f02ae6cb25b6c89b7f61a89001e89700a2f9631505bfd8e07ac6dcc761c59c.jpg (dl) (124.98 KiB)
>>5910
>You cannot be deplatformed if you are on your own server with a tor onion service address instead of a regular domain.
static content should be hosted on a content addressable network, like freenet or gnunet
and anything else should be on something like i2p but not written by script kiddies
Tor is a temporary bandaid for until the web is replaced

Nanonymous No.5916 [D] >>5924
>>5912
>freenet
Yes, I too love unintentionally hosting CP.

Nanonymous No.5923 [D][U][F] >>5924
File: a62caa3a78ed65a23ddef202042ad95616230c171a1f48c6857fb2b6e2b3f9bc.jpg (dl) (16.94 KiB)
>ISP
Yes, I too love unintentionally transmitting CP.

Nanonymous No.5924 [D] >>5929
>>5916
>>5923
Serious question, does it even matter if its encrypted and you have plausible deniability?

Nanonymous No.5926 [D][U][F]
File: bc8c39ccc17f259610be11503b48019c9721bd66a91456b1517c85f3bec5afa4.gif (dl) (702.92 KiB)
It's not """plausible deniability""". It's how the protocol works. And is how good protocols work. This is the end to end principle. You simply don't know what fragments of files you currently host, because it's none of your fucking business.
If you want, you can compile a database of every single file in the world (of course it will only be the ones you are able to find, so it will be limited), and then use your 1000TB HDD to pretend you can now filter stuff and act like a complete retard American who thinks everything including speech has to be regulated.

Nanonymous No.5927 [D]
>>5834
>and look how full of garbage it is, you can hardly communicate there at all.
FMS worked perfectly fine last time I checked

Nanonymous No.5929 [D][U][F] >>5930 >>5934
File: 964d237f850a050acf72dff00fea704335c5426dc21cd8a0c9dd693846c55e71.jpg (dl) (277.86 KiB)
>>5924
IANAL, but I wouldn't bet on the authorities not just locking up everyone participating in such a network. Laws are the shit that could be interpreted very broadly. Did you use that network? Yes. Does that network spread its content via all the members? Yes. Was the illegal content distributed? Yes. Please, you're welcome to serve the time. Thank you for your cooperation.
Now, it doesn't mean you have to leave that network right now. It's just a thought for a foreseeable future, when the precedent is set or whatever. I mean, I see no legal obstacles to doing that, apart from police being overworked by that shit as it is.

Nanonymous No.5930 [D] >>5936
>>5929
I know what you mean star, but let's imagine that such a network, let's call it the next internet, is used by millions of people, they can't put everyone in jail at that point and even before that moment they always need to prove that you were responsible in court, at least for now its innocent until proven, it's easier to prove you were responsible if you choose to seed stuff in particular, like with torrent or zeronet, while if you didn't choose and you didn't know cause of encryption the content good luck proving anything in court.
We need to reach the tipping point where they can't do shit about it.
I don't really think the alternatives we have now are decent enough tough.

Nanonymous No.5934 [D]
>>5929
Well yeah since everyone in the republic of america has the attitude that everything has to be legally examined and regulated, including your speech and breathing patterns, they will willingly accept laws against using network X and network Y. They will also willingly accept mandatory chip implants.

Nanonymous No.5936 [D][U][F] >>5938
File: c07ab098ca1c4648c3c7ad2de09a97ffd2f5b9f8c449aa35d2be7b13acd0f887.jpg (dl) (256.86 KiB)
>>5930
> We need to reach the tipping point where they can't do shit about it.
Well, they cannot do much about torrents now already.
I mean, with all that effort to close TPB, they failed even with that. Actual content providers just need to hide better, with seedbox hosting in Moldova or other mafia state LOL (I don't believe Moldova is as much a mafia state as Kosovo or Transnistria but whatever).
So, all in all torrents are good enough for now.

Nanonymous No.5938 [D]
>>5936
>Well, they cannot do much about torrents now already.
Only problem of torrents is the metadata part, read this blogpost made by a mantainer of a big music collection torrent he says some interesting things on how to improve it:
http://archivecaslytosk.onion/bqxBi

Nanonymous No.5950 [D] >>6037
torrents work pretty good over i2p. i can deal with the slight slowness for the lack of metadata.

Nanonymous No.6032 [D] >>6038
>>5910
>your own server
You will still get ddos'd

Nanonymous No.6037 [D]
>>5950
TORRENTS? NOW NOW WHIPPERSNAPPER DON'T GO ROUND TELLIN' ME 'BOUT NO TORRENTS. BACK IN MY DAY WE USED TO SHARE OUR MUSIC OVER NAPSTER AND DONGLE. THIS NEW-FANGLED TORRENT POPPYCOCKERY IS SLOWIN' MY INTERNET DOWN BECAUSE YOU YOUNGSTERS DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW TO RATE LIMIT YOUR NETWORK STACK! NOW YOU SEE, IN THE GOOD OLD DAYS WE USED TO HAVE A SERIAL CONNECTION ON UCB CAMPUS WHICH AUTOMATICALLY LIMITED THE TRANSFER RACE SO THAT EVERYONE'S INTERNET CONNECTION WAS THE SAME SPEED. NOW YOU WON'T GET ANYTHING THAT GOOD THESE DAYS, DAMN KIDS ARE SO GREEDY. -John

This post was made using voice recognition software developed by Elenvire Technologies, Inc. Copyright (C) 1997 Microsoft Corporation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Nanonymous No.6038 [D][U][F]
File: b75c94d039214322296702389630e3a53daedbfd9f7b5a5bc78bc9f6fa2b03cc.mp4 (dl) (4.52 MiB)
>>6032
that's where content-addressable stragae comes in, nigga

Nanonymous No.6408 [D] >>6415
>>5843
Yes hi, I am the guy that made that lokinet thing.
Lokinet is an IP layer onion router built up from absolute zero based on no other code base but takes architectural design hints from i2p and tor. It's made to run in client mode on a soho router and auto magic your lan to multiple exit nodes via 4 hops and allow you to access hidden services all at the IP layer (triggered by dns). it is packet based like i2p but has the client/server separation like tor. the main difference is that the loki project funds the development so they get their coin integration they want. nothing stops you from running it without the blockchain backend, in fact that is probably easier to deploy in the end. the coin stuff is neat but not required and setting up a network fork is literally just a config option away.

pros:

* fresh codebase without decades of tech debt
* IP level onion routing, turnkey and just works no special application shims required.
* only DJB cryptography used, absolutely no NIST in the protocol.
* fast, even now with almost zero optimization i can watch youtube hd via exit while pushing bittorrent.

cons:
* we can't mitigate traffic shape (neither can tor or i2p tho)
* fingerprint mitigation needs to be done at OS level, which is probably for the best anyways.

caveat: we're not tor or i2p so don't expect either, expect something new and interesting.

Nanonymous No.6413 [D] >>6415 >>7086
>* fresh codebase without decades of tech debt
except UNIX and some shit language
>only DJB cryptography
this is some next level memeing

Nanonymous No.6415 [D] >>7086
>>6408
Intriguing, thanks. Will check it out.
>>6413
https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2016-March/028824.html
Cry harder, NSA.

Nanonymous No.6417 [D][U][F]
File: 5c2724034234582e5ed42335c15612e2130af30ae84b9219d02e9b79be3ae21d.gif (dl) (14.02 KiB)
> p2p
What about NAT traversal? Is STUN/TURN and DHT is all we have by now?

Nanonymous No.7086 [D] >>7089
>>6415
>the Bernstein monoculture isn't necessarily a vote for Dan, it's
more a vote against everything else.

this is correct, it's not because it's super good it's because everything else sucks ass.

>>6413
in my experience the only way to have the credentials to talk shit about onion routers and be taken seriously is AFTER implementing an onion router yourself. it isn't as hard as people make it out to be it's just very tedious and lots can go wrong. lots of onion routers exist but 95% of them never are deployed because it's an academic niche subject made by people that have unrealistic expectations out of the end users and requires a UX with very few real world applications.
I am not an academic, academics are ideologically driven lamers who demand theoretical purity at the expense of practicality and end user UX. Honestly, I am just some guy that got bored and thought it'd be cool to make an onion router. Then shit hit the fan and I got hired to do it.
Bottom line, academics are off trying to create a theoretical high level design of a platonic ideal that will never be relevant to the majority of end users. End users want something for nothing, the IX want more traffic, AS operators want unspoofable connectivity. each of these parties gets what they want with lokinet, it's a win-win-win.
i would love to have a base OS that isn't UNIX or NT that is free as in freedom but ReactOS and haiku aren't going to be viable any time soon. inb4 GNU HUUUUUUUUURD, micro kernels are a dead fad from the 80s, monolithic does suck but at least they are fast. the real solution is somewhere in the middle.

Nanonymous No.7089 [D]
>>7086
>micro kernels are a dead fad from the 80s
They are not. Look moar.

Nanonymous No.7210 [D]
>I am not an academic, academics are ideologically driven lamers who demand theoretical purity at the expense of practicality and end user UX.
In otherwords: "I am a charlatan"
>academics are off trying to create a theoretical high level design of a platonic ideal that will never be relevant to the majority of end users.
The end users want to suck corporate dick all day long. This is entirely irrelevant to my interests.
>ReactOS and haiku aren't going to be viable any time soon.
You have no idea what you're talking about if you had to consider those as viable options. RectOS would not be suitable for anything even if it was fully finished.
>micro kernels are a dead fad from the 80s, monolithic does suck but at least they are fast. the real solution is somewhere in the middle.
claiming things you don't like are "microkernels" and subsequently claiming "microkernels are dead" is a dead fad from the 80s