/g/ - Technology

install openbsd

[Make a Post]
[X]





Nanonymous No.5582 [D][U][F][S][L][A][C]
File: c499edcfc08e44a4f4ff1e2a7193c95b8a7fecc8bf9adf6d0b6f90ef7a961d2e.png (dl) (1.17 MiB)
Recent events have lead to increased scrutiny of imageboards and other freedom/free speech focused forums. Major news articles from multiple outlets (http://archivecaslytosk.onion/l7o4d http://archivecaslytosk.onion/HBCZj http://archivecaslytosk.onion/Xnx6e) have portrayed sites similar to ours in a negative light, claiming that they are "a place for white supremacists to indoctrinate others—mostly young white men—into bigoted ideologies". (this is obviously false at least on this imageboard, as demonstrated through our rightful declaration of hapa supremacy)

Over time, the consequences of this kind of exposure will worsen. Some imageboards adopt a much more strict moderation policy, and cease to espouse freedom and free speech. They bend to the will of corporations and governments, who they perceive as invincible opponents with the power to crush them at any moment if they do not toe the line. Imageboards and forums that adopt this approach become a mockery of their former selves, the users being either ignorant of the control being placed over them, or choosing to adopt defeatist attitudes, surrender their freedom willingly.

Other imageboards/forums initially resist the corporations and governments, and find themselves increasingly in the spotlight/subject to "sanctions" from major powers. Cloudflare recently terminated their service of 8chan (http://archivecaslytosk.onion/jibT9) claiming that platforms like 8chan "directly inspire tragic events and are lawless by design". Cloudflare's objection to 8chan is that it is "uniquely lawless" - they (or whoever is putting pressure on them) see this lawlessness as a threat. This is despite repeated statements from Cloudflare claiming that they do not want to become content police (http://archivecaslytosk.onion/EeuCJ).

Cloudflare is a major player in terms of the internet - in that same article from 2017 they claim to handle 10% of internet requests. However, there is no reason to believe that the attempts to shut down freedom and free speech on the internet will end there. ISPs, ICANN (who administer DNS), and Certificate Authorities (through TLS) all control and administer the technologies that most would consider The Internet. However, all of these either are or are influenced by corporations and governments. Governments essentially control Internet Service Providers. Some countries have mandatory metadata retention (http://archivecaslytosk.onion/RDQIM) which require ISPs to hold metadata for years while giving government agencies warrantless access. ICANN delegates the distribution and sale of names to other businesses and agencies, all of which can be pressured by corporations and governments. """Trusted""" certificate authorities are companies which gather """trust""" from even larger companies, and from time to time they break that trust (http://archivecaslytosk.onion/S8Irj http://archivecaslytosk.onion/z2FqG). The CA system is designed to make it difficult for individuals and small groups to create their own widely used certificate authority - """trust""" must first be earned from the major powers.

ISPs, ICANN, the CA system, Cloudflare, VPS/datacenters, all are symptoms of centralization, enemies of freedom and free speech on the internet. They are the system which aims to control communication. The very idea of moderation is a restriction on how you can express yourself, which is a way to control how you think to force you to conform. This "lawlessness" which is despised by the major powers is precisely what must be preserved. The question is - how do we accomplish this?

I think we must begin by discarding the core forms of administration of The Internet. We must free ourselves from the tyranny of the few.

Even datacenters are a centralization of computers, giving few control over many. I believe it is important that the infrastructure of whatever we create is distributed.

What level do we aim to control? Should we aim to create a new network (not The Internet) free from the control of ISPs, governments, and corporations?

Should we be content with operating over-the-top of current protocols and systems, doing our best to circumvent their problems? (e.g. through Tor)

We can already create hidden services on Tor that are difficult to connect to irl locations and identities. However, such services are still a single point of failure. If a single computer is seized, a single person arrested, or a single power/internet connection is cut, the service fails.

"Federation" allows multiple separate systems to communicate and cooperate over a shared protocol to deliver a unified service. E.g. Email, IRC. More recently, many different applications have used a shared protocol (ActivityPub) to create "The Fediverse", a connected network of social web services. Federation allows for a service that is much more resistant to censorship and control.

Could we combine federation and hidden services to produce an imageboard/other forum that has all of the advantages of both of these systems, without being dependent on the technologies which allow corporations and governments to exert control over the mainstream internet?

Nanonymous No.5584 [D] >>5586 >>5616
>ICANN, CloudFlare
Tor to the rescue
>CA
Tor, not as much to the rescue
>ISPs, VPS/datacenters
nothing whatsoever to the rescue
>Other imageboards/forums initially resist the corporations and governments
8ch is completely cooperative. They're attacked by twitter mobs, not governments.
>"Federation" allows multiple separate systems to communicate and cooperate over a shared protocol to deliver a unified service. E.g. Email, IRC.
email is a good example. IRC is not as good.
what's good about email? You get it automatically with just owning a domain. You tell people, "yeah contact me at bob@computers", and computers has an MX record to points to IP that will be accept email on behalf of computers, and you're done. This permits Gmail, it permits email run out of a home server, it permits email run out of a closet in a business, it permits everything.
If you want maximum practical freedom of implementation of a 'unified' service, then do like email and root it in a DNS record.

Recent events have me wanting to do a federated chan, something like (or actually using and interopable with) the fediverse. nntpchan might be a better alternative, but... I guess I'll have to read those RFCs just to get a basic idea of how it works. It's impossible to find information on it beyond shit like "HOW TO LEECH BINS ON THE ORIGINAL DARKNET LOL"

Nanonymous No.5586 [D] >>5603
Alternative internet thread already exists >>>/g/3980

>>5584
>Recent events have me wanting to do a federated chan
It's a limited example, but the Bitmessage protocol has support for decentralised message channels, supposedly. And Bitboard is a chan-like frontend for it, with images supported through base64 encoding.
>It's impossible to find information on it beyond shit like "HOW TO LEECH BINS ON THE ORIGINAL DARKNET LOL"
The Fediverse documentation seems approachable enough.

Still, you'd have to be specific about recent events. Pigchan being dropped by Cloudflare is annoying, but foreseeable. Domain provider dropping Jim is more worrying. But the real shit happened when Cloudflare's supposed competitor that has agreed to take up the website was annihilated so fast that it took them a while to process what even happened. When people who control the hardware your service runs on (and then their peers) turn against you, no amount of planning will keep it afloat. It's like trying to escape from a sealed airtight box. Things like Tor at least give you some more space for movement until the box collapses.

Nanonymous No.5601 [D] >>5602
>>>/pol bye.

Nanonymous No.5602 [D]
>>5601
it's goy bye, retard

Nanonymous No.5603 [D] >>5605
>>5586
That was my point with using hidden services though - they are entirely independent of Cloudflare or any other major providers - you can host them out of your home/institution, having complete control yourself. You do not need to rely on DNS/CAs etc. at all

Nanonymous No.5605 [D][U][F] >>5617 >>6311
File: 963b7ef67cff4fdf393f0cb1c9da1b3e15101f82ab1b71200b86274f1bf88ad5.jpg (dl) (215.79 KiB)
>>5603
You don't need to rely on ICANN and paid CA too.
OpenNIC Project offers DNS and free TLDs. You can run your own root server using NSD with dns-crypt.
You can use Let's Encrypt with acme-client.
You also don't need a VPS. You can run your own server with httpd and libressl.
https://www.opennic.org/
https://man.openbsd.org/nsd.8
https://man.openbsd.org/acme-client
https://man.openbsd.org/httpd.8

>CA system, Cloudflare, VPS/datacenters, all are symptoms of centralization
Wrong in all three. CA System is distributed web of trust. Cloudflare is just a meme, use if you want. VPS is to avoid maintainance of the server (power usage is very expensive), but you can just buy any computer and run your own server if you want (you can update dynamic IP using duckdns script).
http://www.duckdns.org/about.jsp

ISPs are, indeed, a centralization. They have too much power. But we cannot really go against them. Meshnets are a great idea, but unless LoRaWAN/DASH7 gets mainstream we won't be able to connect the whole world (or even Europe) and there's also legislations against use of electromagnetic waves (DASH7 is free, but it wouldn't be able to transmit high bandwidth data and meshnets require this, since the topology is distributed in some way or another).

The solution would be to build a fully encrypted, distributed and anonymous meshnet, such as Netsukuku and use a DoubleRatchet algorithm above it. But that would require too much effort and will most probably never happen.

Nanonymous No.5616 [D]
>>5584

>ISPs, VPS/datacenters
>nothing whatsoever to the rescue

Meshnet(s).


Nanonymous No.5617 [D] >>5623 >>6316
>>5605

CloudFlare isn't really a meme, it's the largest DDOS protection service.

That said, it is a meme in the sense that there are better (aka ones that won't kick off a site because muh reasons) alternatives.

Nanonymous No.5618 [D]
>Messaging Layer Security (MLS) is an IETF working group building a modern, efficient, secure group messaging protocol.
https://protocol.messaginglayersecurity.rocks/#rfc.section.1
>Molasses
>An extremely early implementation of the Message Layer Security group messaging protocol
https://github.com/trailofbits/molasses

Nanonymous No.5623 [D] >>5624 >>5626 >>5630 >>5634
I like the way Usenet works, basically. I used it in the 90's (before it got spammed to hell) and it was nice and usable even on low-end computers. The server software also doens't have any huge requirements, so it would be feasible to run a node even on old, small, or weird hardware (that don't have all the common modern hardware flaws). The protocol is decentralized by design, and puts the responsibility on the client to handle user interface details (which is where those belong IMO, rather than a web-based thing like nttpchan). But the official NNTP RFC has message headers that give out too many details, so those would need to get filtered out.
The other nice thing is it's a store-and-forward system, so if a node goes down it can catch up at a later time, so there is a lot of built-in resilience. And it also makes it easy for the end-user to save/archive entire threads or newsgroups, as he can run a "leaf node" on his computer that only he connects to.
And the server software is much simpler too! Today I was getting CGI error when trying to post on nanochan. And on endchan I just got a DB error a few minutes ago:
> MongoError: failed to reconnect after 30 attempts with interval 1000 ms
But with Usetnet, it just text files organized in a directory hierarchy, sort of like qmail. There is less code necessary, less hardware requirements, and it's more resilient than any of the web stuff.

>>5617
Did you notice they block anything they don't like, including Tor, or even "weird" browsers over clearnet. I got blocked by my bank some months ago because I just happened to go there with Firefox on NetBSD.
So it's clearly not just DDoS protection. Their purpose is to force people to use the botnet browsers and OS, and make everyone conform. They can't really do too much yet, because there are still quite a few places that don't use cloudflare. But maybe a few years from now, they'll have enough momentum to take the mask off and reveal their true purpose: no more anonymous Internet activity now, you have to login to do anything at all. If you're not actively logged into google, facebook, or other (((service))), they refuse you just as they refuse Tor or "weird" browser today. Well sometimes they just make you fill out a google catpcha and then let you in, but I've also had places outright block me.
The end goal is of course to keep tabs on everyone and have an accurate trail of what they do online. Currently they can save lots of data, but it can't always be mapped with 100% certainty to an identity. And that is a big problem for them, since the plan is for this identity to be associated with a social score, and so can't just let the goyim escape their surveillance and do stuff outside the system.

Nanonymous No.5624 [D] >>5626
>>5623
>have an accurate trail of what they do online
ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, I don't like thinking about this.

Everyone on this forum (including myself) is most definitely on a watchlist. I wish I never redpilled. I wish I was a normie.

Nanonymous No.5626 [D]
>>5623
We are certaintly just at the beginning or the intermediate phase of the centralization of the internet, one thing in clouflare way are VPNs though, i don't think they can just ban them.
>>5624
>I wish I never redpilled. I wish I was a normie.
embrace the infamy

Nanonymous No.5630 [D] >>5631
>>5623
Do you also see the pattern on how the userbase of free-speech places are described? (((The media))) says that ALL of 8chan users were hatefilled, bigoted and pedophillic people . That is not true (only for /pol (the cancer that kills) and maybe /b2/), but (((the media))) won't tell you that.
I fear for the next generation who don't get to experience a free and unfiltered internet. I can already imagine ISP's blocking tor nodes and replace them all with nodes from the government'.
And you know what the worst part of this is? Nobody fucking cares about it. Why else do people skip the privacy policies on everything or that (((pozz)))book is still widely used?

Nanonymous No.5631 [D][U][F] >>5635 >>6687
File: e2e2228845149f17a9a7a48503586988e4d5b79869703cc5a20b7fddf1a52ec4.png (dl) (84.98 KiB)
>>5630
/tv/ was a fucking cancer too
Anyway, I don't see a problem with media telling lies. You are not supposed to believe media in any age, under any regime. It's like if you considered panegyrics truth. And honestly, I'd have no problem with media actually lying like this and prefer it to "truth" far, far more. At least I'd be able to read news, sure, not for news, but would, and wanted to believe. All you see since then is smearing and comparisons made by grounded mediocrities, in worse cases facts.
Second, the problem with media is not that they exist, but that people, because they are unable to pursue long-term, not-shallow interests and in general dragged by porkies around, seek news at all, the little fucking carrots.
>nobody fucking cares about it
I don't care too, give me lies and I'd be happy.

Nanonymous No.5634 [D][U][F] >>5647
File: bf1250d738f75bc29dfce23a6104e8716a049feead5e73d0fc76d32e2e719796.png (dl) (358.03 KiB)
>>5623
>I used it in the 90's (before it got spammed to hell)
This is the flaw of any system that is properly decentralized or anonymous. Even this board operates on mostly security through obscurity. Interface details are less important, the lynchpin of the entire system is retention of content without succumbing to spam. And I don't see it being a solvable problem while being completely automatic.

In terms of threads and imageboards, in my uneducated opinion, a modified version of Usenet could work. Where there would be two caches - temporary and retention. Temporary is a free for all that accepts all cancel messages from all designated mods that a server is subscribed to, retention cache is where threads are being archived or moved after a safety period. But it's just throwing shit at a wall. The immediate problems being moderation availability 24/7 and the simplicity of the protocol plus lean hardware requirements themselves being an easy in for any spammer. People rightfully hate the (((Google CAPTCHA))), but its basically an arms race between them and Pajeets that solve others for you at non-existent prices.

Nanonymous No.5635 [D] >>5637
>>5631
News is kinda important though, and it's one of the main reasons I went on 8ch. Because otherwise coverage of events like the syrian war, the rapefugee crisis, the terrorist attacks, the Gilets Jaunes, and tons of other events were either ignored completely by the MSM, or they spun lies about it. And what I looked for the most were facts, evidence, videos, and so on. The actual discussions that were full of shills and D&C, those were secondary and I simply ignored most comments.
I used to try to ignore most of this stuff, but around 2013 something changed. I felt the world was changing, and that I had better start to understand what's going on. Because being in the dark was getting on my nerves. I could sense that some nasty shit was coming my way, and I'd best be mentally prepared on how to handle it.
Now I understand too how they're going to censor the Internet at large, and impose their total surveillance program and social score system. And that's something I'm going to get around too, but it requies knowledge, insight, and preparation, and not just ignoring the world around me until I'm totally lost and trapped like all the normies on facebook.

Fyrd Up Death Grips No.5637 [D][U][F] >>5646
File: a19efbeef2f7a6c42e2d32d7d3d774862b023891f0ebbf4d4e8d7446990ed12a.flac (dl) (9.75 MiB)
>>5635
>ignoring the world around me until I'm totally lost and trapped like all the normies on facebook
Let's look at the issue from my pov, dear /pol/tard. Before anything else is said, you ignore world by reading news, not the other way around.
First of all, I can't do shit about what happens elsewhere. 2) whatever happens wherever won't change my beliefs nor influence me in any way whatsoever, if anything it will just strengthen my will, but I need not to torture myself in order to strenghten my will 3) I do irl, where my actions matter, only thing you can do on the internets about this matter is shilling and hacking; former is bullshit, as the people who are able to do something already came to the same or similar conclusions and do; propagating is for retards, some people just desire other people to tell them them what to do, like you do 4) news are written by iq 68 retads, all news. By degenerates thinking this shit matters. It does not. 5) only "news" that have at least some value, although almost none, are purely informational snippets and raw shit from source, but that's not news, that's information and it's avaliable for whoever searches for it, and, already mentioned, valuable panegyrics, because they deny news 6) I have eyes, I have ears, I have mind 7) I feel no urge sperging about meaningless shit 8) I don't like dim and dull, all the shit news and retards writing and commenting them are, similar with information; why? 9) plebs talk trash all the time; you can't really escape the news' scythe

Nanonymous No.5646 [D]
>>5637
I don't read news, I look for information, not necessarily is predigested soundbytes, and preferably from different sources with different agendas. Anyway I'm not here to convince you of anything, since as I said information is all that I'm looking for. And I don't even subscribe to any specific political ideology, or any religion, or any kind of system of belief or politics whatsoever. Those are for you to get lost in...

Nanonymous No.5647 [D] >>5681
>>5634
>This is the flaw of any system that is properly decentralized or anonymous
PoW/pay2post(crypto) to the rescue. Broadcast the message with PoW, send some cryptobucks to independent mods to review and broadcast signed opinion for automated filtering.

Nanonymous No.5679 [D]
>Meshnet(s).
Naming the solution doesn't make it exist.

Nanonymous No.5681 [D]
>>5647
>pay2post
How would the payment calculation work? Assuming the user is charged per post, there's now an incentive to let your posts and replies pile up over days or weeks, and unleash them all at once, and mods have to comb through all of that before making a decision (if the user is particularly sneaky, they can include their shitposts inbetween high quality replies to get their posts through the censors. If you charge users by character/byte, they'd be less inclined to make effort posts, and there's nothing stopping users from creating an insane amount of 1 character posts just to annoy the mods.
Maybe the best solution is payment per posts with a maximum character limit. Still doesn't solve the problem of files (disparity in content density between text and videos, for example), and that you're effectively excluding poorfags or those unwilling to spend money just to make a post, turning this into a gimmick.
Though the latter could be solved by only sending a percentage of the coins to mods, and somehow granting a net positive of coins back to the poster if over a certain threshold of mods approve of the post. This could also serve as an incentive to raise the quality of the overall posts, since presumably (in order to maintain the value of the coin) the payout per percentage approval would increase, as more coins end up in thin air due to low approval resulting from a recent influx of low quality posts.

Nanonymous No.5686 [D]
Pay2post will never work because assholes will game the system to make money with it without providing anything of value.

Nanonymous No.6309 [D][U][F]
File: ef937955506a4dc36702e2a64cadefb02bc458619236afc09fe938d7dc6713b5.gif (dl) (1.55 MiB)
speaking of, do any of you know any other imageboards that you can browse through onion web? the only one i know is nanochan. i just want to be up to speed with things when clearweb boards are taken down.

Nanonymous No.6310 [D]
do you guys need a logo?

Nanonymous No.6311 [D]
>>5605
> https://www.duckdns.org/about.jsp
> free dynamic DNS hosted on AWS

Nanonymous No.6313 [D]
NNTP would be a good alternative for low bandwidth text-only messageboards. Back then there were certain bastard admins and SJW types who would send cancel messages claiming that they had to fight "fascism", but some servers didn't accept those cancel messages, and in other cases they were exposed as faggot commies. If there was spam, you could apply a simple filter and get done with it with minimal need for mods.

I remember a couple of tor nntp servers on hidden wiki some years ago, then they just disappeared.

I believe it would be easy to adapt some client/server software to work safely with tor. There were many nntp apps written in borland delphi back then, so perhaps they could be ported to lazarus or even be made from scratch.

Nanonymous No.6316 [D]
>Recent events have lead to increased scrutiny of imageboards and other freedom/free speech focused forums
>chans are free speech focused forums
wrong. chans are a format of posting images along with simple formatted text. this chan doesn't even have free speech anyway since you can't post anything that looks like CP, and on other chans, "screeds" are removed too. in any case the chan owner can make the topics about whatever he wants and moderate it however he wants.
>>5617
cucflare is literally powered on meme fumes. they get popular by appealing to "thought leaders" on HN, who then casually mention they use cuckflare (or make an entire blog post about it) and it trickles down to lesser webshotters.

Nanonymous No.6317 [D]
The clearnet is pozzed beyond repair and the 90s ain't coming back. Nanochan feels home now, but the structure underneath is more like a hut than the fortress it should be. I'd wager laying low would keep places like this running for longer, but even if all /pol attwhores drop dead there's now a solid "demand" for "muh evil haxx0r/pedo/terrorist" stories in the (((media))).

Nanonymous No.6318 [D]
>since you can't post anything that looks like CP
I only delete it if it is considered CP under US law.

Nanonymous No.6498 [D] >>6502 >>6504 >>6518
Best thing I've been able to come up with in my head is PoW (Proof of Work) Chan. The chan sends you a nonce and then you calculate a hash designed to take a few hours to compute, after which you may post. The hash could be calculated in the browser via JS (for lazy fucks) or by a one-line bash command that the user could run (shown in the website).

This does create an asymmetry in accessibility (people with better computers would be able to post more), but it would increase the cost of a spam attack and fuck over mobile users (which can only be a good thing).

Nanonymous No.6502 [D] >>6654 >>6657
>>6498
Thinkpad or potato users would be fucked by this, and what you describe already exists in the form of coin-backed imageboards

Nanonymous No.6504 [D] >>6522 >>6624
>>6498
PoW has been discussed even when Nanochan was being made, I think it was even implemented for a really short while as some C code that does the work. It just makes people with expensive enough gear outnumber everyone else. The trouble with posting anything over Tor is that identifiers are the only working method to stop spam in a reliable way. And by implementing any kind of identifier you automatically reduce the anonymity of everyone. Posting under something that is cached on the server side is not an IP hash, but at this point you're running a forum and not a board.

If you want some really questionable design outline for Tor, that sort of handles spam:
>generate keypair with algorithm (like PGP) as login credentials
>the newer the pair, the more restricted the posting. Think captcha strength and frequency or post numbers during spam waves
>status is not regulated by time, but by post count to mitigate some mass generation attacks
>do not keep the logs of anything, only post number is tied to keypair and not the posts themselves
>keypair is only used to request captcha and submit post
>as a result, mods cannot see any info about posts
But again, this is some gay shit and not even anything resembling an imageboard anymore.

Nanonymous No.6506 [D] >>6768
>

Deepsites — Distributed anonymous websites hosted using Tahoe-LAFS-I2P, currently only reachable with Tahoe-LAFS-I2P clients or through the Tahoe-LAFS-I2P HTTP proxy. [service]

Why did no-one tell me this was a thing? How usable are they? Any anonymity compromises? Seems like a good platform for an imageboard.

Nanonymous No.6518 [D]
>>6498
Why bother with PoW, p2p or any other complicated solution if there are many old, reliable technologies available that could be used instead.
What about a mailing list based imageboard?

Nanonymous No.6520 [D] >>6530
Imageboards are dead, We should thrid to create a decentralized and pseudoanonymous MUD, it should be like entering the cyberspace you have always read in fiction. Solves all the problems above mentioned.

Nanonymous No.6522 [D] >>6533
>>6504
How are you able to track post count if you are not logging anything?

Nanonymous No.6530 [D]
>>6520
already "solved" by Freenet FMS.
except for the part where it's webshit

Nanonymous No.6533 [D]
>>6522
You do track post numbers, but only numbers. As in, if the post is made successfully, you increment the number. No other information needs to be stored about your identity. There's also some sense in not counting past a certain number of posts, considering it to be large enough. So with time the numbers blend together even more.

Nanonymous No.6624 [D] >>6626 >>6632
>>6504
>PoW has been discussed even when Nanochan was being made, I think it was even implemented for a really short while as some C code that does the work.
Interesting.
>It just makes people with expensive enough gear outnumber everyone else.
That is a downside.
> The trouble with posting anything over Tor is that identifiers are the only working method to stop spam in a reliable way.
The method isn't meant to *stop* spam, it's meant to make spam *manageable* by increasing its cost.
>The trouble with posting anything over Tor is that identifiers are the only working method to stop spam in a reliable way. And by implementing any kind of identifier you automatically reduce the anonymity of everyone. Posting under something that is cached on the server side is not an IP hash, but at this point you're running a forum and not a board.
PoW would only need to be kept on record long enough for the user to compute it. Posting would spend the PoW entirely.

Nanonymous No.6626 [D] >>6627 >>6628
>>6624
If a per-post PoW is used, I'd suggest having the hashing program fetch a string from the server which is then used by the PoW function, and have the string expire after an hour or so, so you can't just accumulate enough tokens to spam in large amounts effectively. The tokens can also steadily increase in difficulty depending on the presence of anomalous pph counts. The downside is that you have to wait before you're able to make a post0

Nanonymous No.6627 [D] >>6628 >>6654 >>6701
>>6626
>expire after an hour
That means people with old computers can't post at all.
This idea was already tried and it failed, because it means that spammers with GPUs can spam all they want while Mr. Notabotnet with his dinkpad can't post without getting really lucky.

Nanonymous No.6628 [D] >>6632 >>6654 >>6701
>>6626
>>6627
>steadily increase in difficulty
This also means that people can do a denial of service by leaving computers spamming somewhere. Imagine someone with a botnet of 50 computers all trying to spam, increasing the difficulty to the point where normal users can't post.

Nanonymous No.6630 [D] >>6636 >>6654 >>6701
>POW
There has been a time, when BitMessages usability was totally annihilated by one single node running an optimized C implementation of the POW code. Back then, BM was written completely in python.

The same thing could happen, if you're using a JS-implementation of the POW code. Last time I've lookedthrough the standards, JS had no real cryptographic API, so every cryptographic algorithm had to be implemented in JS. If that still is the case, a POW done within the browser would be extremely slow, and everyone having access to a C implementation could do floods. If you're distributing some precompiled POW-generator, this would open up your users to malware attacks. If jews or (state-)criminals take over the board, they could trick you into installing their malware.

BTW, a captcha can be considered as a POW done by humans. I think, that captchas still are the best way to go, when it comes to stonewalling spam. Textbased captchas can be attacked by neural networks, but there are many possible ways to implement captchas, which require some understanding of what's being depicted, which bots wouldn't have.

Another thing I'd consider would be to use a bot to detect and filter spam based on content. Neural Networks can be used for forensic text analysis to identify the author of some piece of text, and most spam is easier to recognize, than authorship. So it should be possible, to train a neural network to detect at least a good part of spam, if enough training data is available.

Of course, there would be false positives and negatives, and a anti-spam-bot could be beaten in many ways. But it still would be a hurdle.


But... I think, that the best way to make a board resilient towards spam flooding would be to turn the whole site into a captcha. Every post could include a little questionaire written by its author, that would ask questions related to the posts content, with possible answers being possible as multiple choice. If someone wants to post in a thread, this person would either have to answer a random selection of those dictionaires, or answer the dictionaires of referenced posts, so some basic human understanding would be required to post. This would make it hard for bots to post in threads, which are populated mostly by humans.

Another thing I'm thinking about is the following:

Nowadays, boards are web applications running on a single node, which uses a single database as its backend. This may be implemented as multiple servers using a load balancer and/or round-robin DNS, and multiple database servers mirroring the same masterDB, but it's always a single point of failure. If you take it out, everything is gone.

A possible remedy would be to use a blockchain based database, which could be shared between servers, so that everyone could provide the infrastructure for the same decentralized board by just running a raspberry pi on his home internet connection, which would then be accessible via .onion url. Of course, blockchains would be so censorship resistant, that illegal content would either be allowed by design, or the whole thing would have to rely on trusted nodes, that block illegal content, and thereby making the size of the network much smaller, aka susceptible to an attack, than it otherwise would be.

Nanonymous No.6631 [D] >>6636 >>6644
Regarding illegal content, a interesting question would be:

If I'd be the owner of a clearnet image board, and someone posts some kiddieporn together with links to his current minecraft livestream, within which timeframe would I have to act? How long would it be okay for me, to make this stuff accesible to the public? I can't act instantly 24/7, so the law can't require me to do so. So, how long do I have, until this stuff must be gone?

That's a really interesting question, because, legally speaking, I just have to prevent illegal content to be accessible for longer than said period. Depending on the timeframe, this problem might be easy to tackle.

Nanonymous No.6632 [D][U][F] >>6636
File: 72565d0a47e4828d2f9709cd8234af89c7e2b5eae9a05525fcdfda3ab0cbce0e.jpg (dl) (134.50 KiB)
>>6624
>it's meant to make spam *manageable* by increasing its cost
The same process by which you manage it with PoW, you also alienate most of your user pool. In fact, both methods of implementing this are bad. If the effort of generating a PoW is static, people with beefy rigs win by default and the gap will keep growing. Will you want to post somewhere that requires you to wait a couple of hours before doing so, because your shitty Chinkpad can't do what an i9 or a GTX 1080 can in 10 minutes? And if the effort is proportional to the strength of spam, you will almost immediately get what >>6628 described.
>PoW would only need to be kept on record long enough for the user to compute it.
For reasons I described above, I don't believe in it working. Especially for a low population board. And all the time-proven ways of combating spam on the wider web involve identifying information. The worst part being that even they, on the infrastructure where keeping track of people and connections is much easier, barely work. Maybe MUD nanon is on to something.

Nanonymous No.6636 [D] >>6644 >>6649 >>6654 >>6701
>>6630
>captcha
In theory, computers are capable of solving any captcha that a human can solve. Therefore, captchas are a solution that runs on borrowed time. They will not work forever; there will eventually be no way to distinguish between bots and humans.
>>6631
You are required to remove it instantly. It is not possible to follow that particular law; it is one of those where they can arrest you when they don't like you and they just have to plant some shit on your website or computer and break into your house 1 second later. Weimericuck garbage white trash accepts this as normal, and they deserve every bit of authoritarian policing they get. Weimerica's authoritarianism is not much better than China, and that's saying quite something - China is a massive shithole.
>>6632
Yes, anonymity is no good in the end. The only system which will work in a 100% foolproof way is accounts and registrations, preferably tied to irl identity in some way.
In an ideal society, the government would provide a free and open public forum where everyone could create a board and post on a board (unless they get banned by the board owner), 8chan style. The government would be able to provide an authentication mechanism utilizing official databases. However, this is not a viable idea in authoritarian shitholes like europe, USA, etc.

Nanonymous No.6638 [D] >>6640 >>6649
>>45213
>You are required to remove it instantly

That's impossible to achieve without giving the feds a direct censorship interface. In the legal sense, "instantly" means something like "without undue delay". Meaning, you should be able to host CP for timeperiods below what a judge would consider to be an undue delay. Depending on how long that timeframe is...

Nanonymous No.6640 [D] >>6641
>>6638
>That's impossible to achieve
It's not supposed to be possible to achieve. They just let big stuff like phaseberg and instatran and jewgle get away with most of what cp gets posted there, but the second a le edgy deebweb site posts cp they can get on it immediately. That's how your (((democratic system))) works. And it's not even rigged: YOUR people voted for this, so you deserve any inconvenience caused.

Nanonymous No.6641 [D] >>6642 >>6644 >>6645
>>6640
tbh the amount of what I consider borderline cp when searching images on ddg is astonishing

Nanonymous No.6642 [D]
>>6641
>searching images on ddg
javascript-using weinberg cuck
even google images doesn't require JS.

Nanonymous No.6644 [D] >>6648
>>6636
>In theory, computers are capable of solving any captcha that a human can solve.
Yes, in theory. However, so far humans have a very distinct advantage over machine learning algorithms in some areas - for example, context. You can train your model to recognize text-based generated CAPTCHA because it needs to be solvable by humans too, but one that is based on social context and, say, understanding double meanings or innuendos might work. While things like the Google search engine understand context of searches in a lot of cases, some things might be too much for them. The problem would be how to generate such a CAPTCHA in an automatic way without having an automatic way to solve it.
>>6641
All search engines suffer from this. I remember a thread more than a year ago about Google image search being full of CP from archive website links. Never have I closed the tab so fucking fast, I thought feds were gonna bust down my door for months after that. It just shows the leeway some websites get versus others.
>>6631
Depends on the shithole you are operating from. From a reasonable timeframe (delete and send info to authorities if you have some, it becomes unreasonable only when you are an undesirable website) to immediately (which means that you have to let government spooks into your website infrastructure, to "protect" you from those nasty posters).

Nanonymous No.6645 [D]
>>6641
>this and that has an muh CP problem!111
kys retard. it's called an anecdode

Nanonymous No.6648 [D] >>6649
>>6644
The real problem with captchas is that you can pay indians pennys to solve them for you, and go back to spamming a website or whatever.
captcha v3 just tracks what all your users do constantly, then marks anyone abnormal (say who disables scripts, or who uses tor exit nodes) as a likely bot.

Nanonymous No.6649 [D]
>>6636
>In theory, computers are capable of solving any captcha that a human can solve. Therefore, captchas are a solution that runs on borrowed time. They will not work forever; there will eventually be no way to distinguish between bots and humans.
At that point it wont matter whether it was a human or bot. By definition. The idea of removing "bot posts" is already an imaginary problem even today. What we want to remove is spam. And that can be done perfectly and automatically with a WoT for anything aside from a place with no psedonyms (such as an anonymos imageboard).
>Yes, anonymity is no good in the end. The only system which will work in a 100% foolproof way is accounts and registrations, preferably tied to irl identity in some way.
No. WoT already solves spam and any other filtering problem you could ask for. Tying shit to government ID for no reason (and it wont even work) is a retard americuck idea. This is where Google is heading btw. Recaptcha has already blocked IPs since 10 years ago.
>>6638
the idea that CP somehow matters is made up. there are CP sites on the clearnet and noone cares about them. because they dont have media hype. CP was never a problem anyway, the idea was to arrest pedos before they cause real-life harm, at the cost of jailing people for mere posession of images. it's a classic "muh tradeoff" al la americuckistan
>>6648
>The real problem with captchas is that you can pay indians pennys to solve them for you, and go back to spamming a website or whatever.
it still works good enough. the only one purpose for captcha though is anonymous shit like imageboards, and sign up to a WoT (as in Freenet FMS)
>captcha v3
you talking about recaptcha? i agree, it's no longer a captcha. it's just botnet.
>then marks anyone abnormal (say who disables scripts, or who uses tor exit nodes) as a likely bot.
right now you can get by without a session (unless you're IP banned) but one day they are going to publish a fabricated article saying how "solving pictures no longer works we have to track you 24/7 goy"

Nanonymous No.6654 [D]
>>6627
You're assuming that the pow function should take more than a few minutes to complete, or that computation with GPUs should be feasible (so, basically using an algo like cryptonight)
>>6628
Well if a spammer is going to be as persistent as that, then the entire pow idea falls apart anyway. The scaling difficulty idea is just so it doesn't need to be as hard all the time, not really meant as a countermeasure but just plain accessibility.
>>6630
>captchas still are the best way to go
this
>Neural Networks can be used for forensic text analysis
If so, you could just scrape and reupload discussion from say, another imageboard and use it as the basis for your spam.
>blockchain based database
That's what I meant by >>6502, but I can't find the implementation I found a while ago again anymore
>>6636
>captchas are a solution that runs on borrowed time
Cryptography in general is also a set of solutions that run on borrowed time. Also, the problem with captchas is that they are required to be solvable by everyone, so you need a strict, consistent set of rules to follow, which incidentally computers excel at.

Nanonymous No.6657 [D] >>6660 >>6661 >>6690
>By definition. The idea of removing "bot posts" is already an imaginary problem even today. What we want to remove is spam.
Absolutely


>WoT
World of Tanks? I don't know, what you mean, and I assume, that you're talking about a PoW. The problem with PoWs is, that optimized implementations - especially when you take those programmable chips into consideration - run much faster than Javascript implementations. Even a C implementation would be faster by orders of magnitute. So to repel a dedicated attacker, it really would be neccessary for a normal user to calculate forever, until he's able to post. And let's be honest, most people - especially those stupid or aware of security reasons - wouldn't use a board which requires them to run a separate piece of software.


>If so, you could just scrape and reupload discussion from say, another imageboard and use it as the basis for your spam.
That wouldn't work, because you'd need two distinct sets of data, with one set being spam, and the other being legit. Imageboards are too polluted by spam to be used as a training set for nonspam, and the bad thing about spam is, that it's being deleted from the interwebs, so it's kinda hard to find in large quantities in its pure form. I think, the developers of such a bot would have to start their own collection of training data. For every language the board supports.

Additionally it's probably possible to detect lots of spam based on the output of some kind of lexical analysis feeding into some kind of predictive statistical model, and by using regular expression based rules maintained by mods.

But in any case, those measures would only find stuff, has some random criteria, stuff considered as spam often has. It's kinda hard to find objective criteria for whether something is spam or not.

BTW, the developers of such a bot would make good money nowadays...


>the idea that CP somehow matters is made up.
The problem with CP is, that the cops might kick your door in and shoot your dog, if you host it, so people wouldn't want to run a blockchain client full of CP. Plus, CP repels most people, so people wouldn't use a forum full of underage orifices to discuss political topics. Those orifices would attract all sorts of perverts, which would then dominate the board.

Personally, I don't care what people fap to. It's none of my business, and you don't hurt anyone by just fapping. I consider CP as the documentation of a crime, if force was involved, but I'd prefer it to be fully legal to own and distribute, as long, as you didn't produce it. Otherwise it will be used as a justification to implement totalitarian measures.

But: As long as it's illegal, being the only one who hosts it, you'll attract all the mentally ill creeps, which will destroy your board. Same as with drugs - Most problems regarding cocaine would cease to exist, if you could buy cocaine in the supermarket for the price of a beer.


>Captcha
I've introduced a idea about how to turn the whole imageboard into a giant automated turing test. Please take it into consideration, because it's a good idea.


>That's what I meant by >>6502, but I can't find the implementation I found a while ago again anymore
Have a look at those links:
https://susukino.com/sumo.pdf
https://github.com/Bitmessage/PyBitmessage

Plus, there are books and articles around, which discuss how to implement a blockchain. The basics are not hard to understand or implement. I'd say, that you can get a working basic implementation with less than 100 lines of python code.


>Cryptography in general is also a set of solutions that run on borrowed time. Also, the problem with captchas is that they are required to be solvable by everyone, so you need a strict, consistent set of rules to follow, which incidentally computers excel at.

No, you just need a test for general abstract understanding of stuff, which computers can't perform.

For example, if I'd ask you for how long I think someone should be incarcerated for fapping to pictures of a naked twelve-year-old, while giving you a multiple choice field with values vom 0 years up to 10 years, you could easily answer this question, but a computer would have to guess randomly. That would be a working captcha for now, which would also filter out stupid people lacking text understanding, which typically are carbonbased spambots.

Nanonymous No.6660 [D]
>>6657
>That wouldn't work, because you'd need two distinct sets of data, with one set being spam, and the other being legit
I wasn't talking about how to train the network here, I was talking about a way to defeat it. But you're right, you would also need another training set for spam.

Nanonymous No.6661 [D] >>6684
>>6657
Your captcha isn't automated. All it takes to break is for a computer to make 11 guesses until it gets the right answer. This is in general the difficulty with captchas: they can never repeat, so you need to be able to generate new ones indefinitely.

Nanonymous No.6684 [D]
>>6661
You're right... Didn't think about bruteforcing it... How embarassing.

However, I still think, that it should be possible, to turn a site into a turing test.

Nanonymous No.6687 [D]
>>5631
The average person thinks with their dopamine.
Neohedonism is the god of the modern world.

Nanonymous No.6690 [D] >>6691 >>6692 >>6694 >>6711
>NN solves this problem blockchain solves that problem
funny how all this groundbreaking tech exists when we still don't have a working IM client or image viewer in the entire field of software
>>6657
>World of Tanks? I don't know, what you mean, and I assume, that you're talking about a PoW.
Web of Trust jesus christ not POW. An actual thing instead of a meme.

Nanonymous No.6691 [D]
>>6690
A web of trust for an anonymous imageboard?! How so? Everyone signs their message with their GPG key, while still remaining anonymous?

Nanonymous No.6692 [D] >>6694
>>6690
>Web of Trust
>Not a meme
pick one

Nanonymous No.6694 [D] >>6697 >>6698
>>6692
name one problem with a WoT. protip: you can't
>>6690
i've already stated WoT as a solution for a distinct problem than anonymous image boards

Nanonymous No.6697 [D] >>6699 >>7627
>>6694
>name one problem with a WoT. protip: you can't
If we're talking imageboards, it would invalidate one of the reasons why they became prominent in the first place. Only what you say matters. With a trust rating attached to you, it would only work if it was hidden away from people. How would you do that in a decentralized service? In case of WoT and Freenet, it states on their own Wiki (Github) that there are already ongoing "trust wars", where people filter others out based on opinions and not just spam. And this is what I am afraid of this turning into - less spam, but everybody is in their shitty bubbles.

Nanonymous No.6698 [D] >>7627
>>6694
>name one problem with a WoT
As the name itself says, "trust". WoT is based on trusting others.
Most of WoTs works using PKI/PKS and these can be MiTM. Certificate authorities can suffer from attacks.
You trusted "A" person. "A" person gets fucked up. Nobody knows "A" person got fucked up, so they still trust him. Now everybody that trusts "A" cannot be relied on but nobody in the network knows "A" is fucked in the first place.

Nanonymous No.6699 [D] >>6706 >>6717 >>6720 >>7627
>>6697
And this, kiddos, is why Lolberg doesn't work. If you think "Everyone(TM)" should have free speech, then what if someone wants to post like a spammer? What if someone wants to post like a bot? You have to accept them, because to do otherwise would be a breach of the principles of Lolbertgurdiansim.

Nanonymous No.6701 [D] >>6704 >>6706
>>6627
>>6630
I find the most convincing argument against PoW to be the disparity in compute power between JS and GPUs giving an advantage to dedicated spammers, and thus the difficulty in using it competitively.
>>6628
>>6636
Pretty sure a dedicated attacker with lots of resources would bring most sites to their knees anyways. It seems the question is whether an attacker would want to spend more money getting past the PoW enough to effectively spam their 1,000 posts than users would be willing to compute for their few posts.

Nanonymous No.6704 [D]
>>6701
have you seen asukerfag he's autistic as fuck. subhuman bug people mentality leads itself to HIGHLY autistic spamming techniques doubly so if it just requires a computer to do wrk in the background

Nanonymous No.6706 [D]
>>6701
>the question is whether an attacker would want to spend more money
They would if they see interest in the community.
t. anon that worked with marketing companies
>>6699
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Nanonymous No.6711 [D]
>>6690
mvi

Nanonymous No.6717 [D] >>6720 >>6727 >>7627
>>6699
That's an oversimplification. Lolburg basically says your rights end where mine begin. Spammers interfere with people attempting to have discussions. Therefore, they don't have the right to shit up boards.

Nanonymous No.6720 [D] >>6724
>>6699
>>6717
Daily reminder liberals and "libertarians" ie ancaps have nothing to do with liberty.

Nanonymous No.6724 [D] >>6730
>>6720
As something close to an ancap, I'd like to mention, that I'm okay with fascist dictatorships, as long, as they're private ans censentual.

In Ancapistan, the board owners would be the fascistic dictators, and it would be their decision, how much spam they're willing to tolerate, and what they do against it. If they make a bad decision in that regard, their board simply die due to a lack of shitposters. I'm here, because I like their way of fascism.

I really get, that the naive interpretation of ancapistan doesn't work, and, even though I consider myself pretty much an anarchist, I also pretty much consider myself a fascist, and there's no contradiction between the two. Anyhow, please continue mocking lolbertarians, because those worthy, will see the light, while those stupid and naive deserve being mocked. But do it somwhere else. This thread is about technical final solutions regarding imageboards.

Nanonymous No.6727 [D] >>6730 >>6751
>>6717
Buuuuuuuuuuuuhuhuuhuuhuht your rights end where mine begin, so because you're interfering with my right to spam, i can stop you deleting my shit!
tl;dr lolberg is still shit because you have to take sides, which is the only reason people would pick lolberg

Nanonymous No.6730 [D] >>6738
>>6724
>I'm okay with fascist dictatorships, as long as they're private and censensual (proofread nigger)
So your ok with any country that gives you the right to emigrate away? Granted that this isn't every fascist dictartorship, but I believe nazi germany was begging jews to emigrate away, so they definitely count.
>>6727
>lolbergs care about your right to spam
the only right libertarians accept is your right to bodily autonomy.
>buh but then lolbergs don't think I should be able to shitpost as much as I want on twitter without getting banned?
No. Retard cuckservatives think that, libertarians are trying to get the government to stay out of shit, not stick their neck where it doesn't belong.

Nanonymous No.6738 [D][U][F]
File: bb76b3a1af1392110a30f387a6ca120bc5492180f1c1a675424d06103e3f51b7.jpg (dl) (979.98 KiB)
>>6730
>libertarians are trying to get the government to stay out of shit
Like, just don't call it government, amirite? kek

Nanonymous No.6739 [D] >>6741 >>6747
>So your ok with any country that gives you the right to emigrate away?
In Ancapistan there wouldn't be huge nationstates, but a huge variety of small states and city states, some with citizenship up for sale, and all with the godgiven right to discriminate against whatever they want to discriminate against. Much like imageboards, but with a militia.

>Twatter, Jewbook, Jewtube !!!
operate within a nationstate-environment, and would be destroyed by competition without those states protection. But their behaviour is very unfortunate indeed, and they should be forced to act in a sensinble manner, if they get this protection. But they aren't, wich may be considered to be a downside of such protection.

BTW, I think, mussolini sometimes called himself an anarchist, when it comes to statehood.

Nanonymous No.6740 [D] >>6741
This is a technology board, not a political board.
>>>/pol/

Nanonymous No.6741 [D] >>6743 >>6751
>>6739
Ancapistan used to exist, and it evolved (or devolved) into what we have today, with NO clear path back. It is therefore apparent that ancap is an unstable system.
>>6740
Fuck off. No one cares

Nanonymous No.6743 [D] >>6744 >>6747
>>6741
No, feudalism existed, which devolved into cancerous republics, which grew into what we have now.

Ancaps are not argueing for feudalism, while you're argueing, that not having cancer is a unstable system, so everyone should have cancer.

But Nanon is right, this is not a political board, so tell me, that I'm wrong, and then let's continue finding out how we get censorship resistant boards. Which is the thing, we actually can achieve.

pic unrelated Nanonymous No.6744 [D][U][F] >>7627
File: 334be539c2c8385863a3db1f18050b939590928ecc4a64cafd31a5e4ffbd1cfe.jpg (dl) (188.28 KiB)
>>6743
literally stick the head out of your ass you degenerate faggot
ancaps are even cringier than nazis

Nanonymous No.6747 [D] >>6748 >>6752 >>6762
>>6739
And what's to prevent these small city-states from slowly congealing through various treaties and purchases into one giant conglomerate state? Look at europe: it was once composed of a variety of small states, now it's one big state (including the uk, which will never leave, ever year asking for an extension forever).

>>6743
>let's continue finding out how we get censorship resistant boards
But that is the problem we were solving. You've just now explained that in order to be resistant to censorship, we need a number of little boards, each their own fiefdom (except not actually, because feudalism bad). I've responded by pointing out that little boards have a tendency to either grow into big boards, or wither and die. This leads to a concentration of users on large boards, and to people feeling like they can't leave, because there's nowhere to go.

If we could solve the ancap problem, we could very easily solve the imageboard censorship problem. Alas, ancapism is fundamentally broken, so that won't go anywhere.

Nanonymous No.6748 [D] >>6749
>>6747
Is panarchy solution?

Nanonymous No.6749 [D] >>6750
>>6748
You mean we would have a single board, but people could choose which moderators they accept, and therefore which posts they see?

Nanonymous No.6750 [D][U][F] >>6752
File: 2a3f7da51920a1711396c98037f32b48ba73fafdc61293198c543d51cbfc0d57.jpg (dl) (92.01 KiB)
>>6749
For example, yes.

Nyanonymous ## Global Volunteer No.6751 [D] >>6755
>>6727 (asukafag)
>so because you're interfering with my right to spam, i can stop you deleting my shit!
You have no rights on imageboards, it's not like they are governments or they have a constitution, it's way simpler in fact, you just have simple rules decided by the administration and when you post you agree to them.

>>6741
<This is a technology board, not a political board.
>Fuck off. No one cares
I care, either get the ancap discussion back on-topic on imageboards or move the discussion to >>>/l/10912 or >>>/pol/
I would appreciate if you could avoid behaving like faggots at the first discussion for once, so that maybe i can avoid nuking another thread.

Nanonymous No.6752 [D]
>>6750
I don't think this is a solution either. Suppose A is conversing with B, when C joins the conversation. B can see C, but A can't (due to different moderation policies). Now A has to decide between changing moderators to see the conversation, or dropping their end of the conversation. In either case we have a tendency towards centralizing moderatorship, just like in >>6747 In the latter case (A switches moderators) we have a tendency towards the most lax moderation. If someone wants moderation stronger than the most lax possible moderation (just deleting obvious spam) then they would furthermore want this to be enforced on everyone they converse with, in order to keep conversations on track.

Nanonymous No.6755 [D][U][F]
File: 283bd165d61dad36e9682a99dada28613920ef65de1ae59ebbda8cecf64fc2f4.jpg (dl) (90.55 KiB)
>>6751
>You have no rights on imageboards
That's why you have to create your own through the use of spamming and DoS tools. Yes, you people could get rid of me, but all I have to do is make it not worth the effort. Either way, my rewrite is almost done. Sooner or later it will not matter.
>I would appreciate if you could avoid behaving like faggots at the first discussion for once, so that maybe i can avoid nuking another thread.
<HURR i will just nuke every thread i don't like
Have fun. Eventually you will be stuck ruling a deserted circlejerking wasteland, just like /pol/ says the jews want to do.

Nanonymous No.6762 [D] >>6763 >>7627
>>6747
I still see something like 8chan, where everyone can open up his own board, but with a database implemented as a blockchain.

BitMessage uses a similar approach, and is highly anonymous and censorship resistant. But BM is kinda hard to install, and you can't expect every polack, /b/tard, etc. to do so. Additionally, the blockchain might soon be huge, if videos and images are included. One might implement a blockchain in such a way, that old data is being discarded after a while, just like BM does, but the bandwidth requirements might still be too large for your home connection, if the thing scales.

So I would implement it as a server software, which basically does, what the 8chan server did, with the exception, that it uses the blockchain database as its backend. This software then would be run by everyone interested in providing additional entry points to the board. Users would connect to the board via normal browsers. The whole thing could be hardened against takedowns, if the servers would communicate via hidden services, so that a seized server wouldn't yield the IPs of other servers. The net would still be reachable via tor, if every clearnet node would have been taken out. And there would be no single IP or hidden service, that could be DDOSed, like they did with 8chan.

Additionally, with the whole thing being an open source software resembling a coin client, people could just spawn their own offshoots, if they don't like something about the existing boards.

Nanonymous No.6763 [D]
>>6762
I know blockchain is the in thing, but what you describe seems a lot like NNTP.

Nanonymous No.6765 [D] >>6778
Yes, NNTP is a VERY cool protocol.

When it comes to imageboards, you want to synchronize the databases of several instances of a webapplication. NNTP might be a way of achieving this, but the protocol also has its downsides due to its age. But what I envision is very much like NNTP.

Nanonymous No.6766 [D] >>6779
>synchronize the databases of several instances
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahoe-LAFS

Nanonymous No.6768 [D]
>>6506
I've looked into it, but you're better off asking the i2p people about it. Susumail was down a while ago so who knows?

Nanonymous No.6778 [D]
>>6765
I've just watched this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xdEyquCl2I

According to the guy, it's more a filesystem, than a tool for syncing databases.

A imageboard is a webapplication. You see the HTML frontend, which displays posts to you and enables you to wrote a post. Those posts are stored in a database on the server.

When you display a thread, the server fetches all posts from his database, which have a relation to said thread. If you post, a new object is created in the database wich has a relation to this thread.

Meaning: Whenever you post, the thread has to be updated, and the post has to be created as a new dataset.

Assuming, that you have a large database, it becomes impractical to synchronize it as a file. Imagine a database as a large binary file, which changes every time, someone writes a post. If you'd synchronize the whole file, you'd have to find out what changed after every post, and distribute something like a binary patch. Finding out what changed takes a very long time, analyzing the patch would be a nightmare, and the whole database would be corrupted after the first error. As far as I can tell, that's what Tahoe-LAFS would make possible. Maybe I'm wrong here, but that seems to be what the guy in the video is talking about.

A more practical way would be, to distribute transactions which happened to the database, instead of the database itself. Meaning, that every time someone writes a post, that's a transaction. The servers would then collect those transactions, and keeps a list of them. That's what NNTP does, but NNTP is basically meant for sharing an email folder, so NNTP technically shares something very similar to emails. You could use NNTP to distribute said transactions, if you'd use formated textmessages, which encode what's neccessary for building the database.

One problem with NNTP is, that NNTP doesn't ensure a synchronous database. Meaning, every server has his own list of messages, and they can differ between servers, depending upon where they get their stuff from. Servers can and manipulate their peers, if they're between two segments of peers.

One way to ensure a definite record is to collect all transactions, and periodically write them into a list, which is somehow authentized as "official" and broadcast between all peers. That's what a so called "block" in a so called "blockchain" is. The authenticity of the database is ensured, if the authenticity of all blocks is ensured, so every peer can be asured, that he has the same database as everyone else.

You can implement many things on top of this technology. For instance, you could implement transactions meant to delete entries from the database, if you want to be able to censor spam/CP. You could use hashes of posts and binary data, so images and video files will get stored only once, instead of every time someone posts them, and can be discarded after a while without compromising the integrity of the blockchain, aka. the database. And so on.


Nanonymous No.6779 [D]
last post was for >>6766.
sorry, typo.

Nanonymous No.6975 [D] >>7117
Hah. I'm thinking about how to design my blockchain based imageboard. Yes, I did some research, and writing a new blockchain is the way to go. But it should be a hybrid solution, where textmessages are saved in the blockchain, while binary data is saved in some kind of retention service.

I've thought about using IPFS as a backend for files, but IPFS doesn't support tor in a meaningful fashion. According to the developers, they won't adjust the code for anonymity purposes before version 1.0, which doesn't exist yet.

So, maybe tahoe-lafs really is the way to go, even if it's more of an decentralized cloud store.

Alternatively, file distribution could also be implemented by writing some central server, which knows which clients have which binary files, so every node wishing to serve some file which it doesn't have, could ast the introduction point, ask for the file, and get a url in return, from which it can download it. Wouldn't be as RAIDy as Tahoe or IPFS, but seems plausible nonetheless.

What do you think, nanon? Any ideas?

Nanonymous No.7117 [D] >>7121
>>6975
I'm still not sure why you want a blockchain in the first place, it's like asking for spam to bloat the network. Would a CDN method work for storing data? The only information you store in the chain is hashes and metadata. Something like [path + message hash + thumbnail hashes + content hashes], where it all points to content distributed over something like Tahoe-LAFS and you only fetch messages for page generation.

Nanonymous No.7121 [D] >>7392
>>7117
>it's like asking for spam to bloat the network

That's not a problem.

First, let's talk about space requirements. Let's say, the average post is 500 characters long. Now we compress it with a 2:1 ratio, which even something old like gunzip would achieve. Now we have 250 Bytes per message, plus some metadata and hashes. Let's say 300 Bytes, which is generous.

A GB of data is 1024^3 = 1073741824 bytes of data. Let's calculate how many averate posts one GB would be able to hold:

1024**3 / 300 = 3579139.4133333336

A day has 24 hours, each hour has 60 minutes, each minute has 60 seconds. Therefore:

24 * 60 * 60 = 86400

Meaning: a day has 86400 seconds.

Assuming, that, on average, one average post per second is added to the blockchain:

3579139 / 8640 = 414.2521990740741

This means that, on average, the blockchain would grow 1 GB every 414 days.

I've got a RasPi with a 32GB SD-Card. If I'd use this RasPi as a client so save all textmessages of my hypothetical board, it would have space for:

(414 * 32) / 365 = 36.295890410958904

around 36 years. And this calculation was rather generous, when it comes to volume. BitMessage has maybe 2000 messages per day, and I think even 4chan has less than 1 post per second on average.


>I'm still not sure why you want a blockchain in the first place

The reason why I think that blockchain is better than the alternatives is, that this technology prevents network fragmentation. NNTP networks with bad connectivity had fragmented subnets all the time, meaning, that messages from other subnets wouldn't reach you. I think, that this would be a problem.


>Would a CDN method work for storing data?

I really would prefer a real P2P system like IPFS, but this doesn't support tor. People could "donate" some of their space for Tahoe-LAFS, when they're running a node. Or just run a standalone node. But it still wouldn't be completely decentralized, because tahoe uses introduction nodes, which coordinate the network.

However, I'd store binary data like images and video files on tahoe, let the nodes make local copies on demand, and store the messages in the blockchain. Filenames could be just hashes, to make sure, that tahoe stores everything only once.

At least, that's how I'd imagine coding a decentralized board.

Nanonymous No.7392 [D] >>7394
>>7121
What about files? Pictures and videos can fill up your 32GB SD card pretty quick.

Nanonymous No.7394 [D] >>7395
>>7392
Yeah. That's why I'd use some kind of p2p filesharing system like IPFS, or a almost-decentralized system like tahoe-fs, to which people can donate storage. Servers can then download and store only the files they need, and thereby store only what their users asked for. Webspiders might become a problem, though.

Another thing which could reduce the amount of binary data to be stored, would be to reference files by hash, so that every file is only stored once, no matter, how often it's uploaded.

But dedicated storage servers from which the hypothetical RasPis with their 32GB SD card can download binary data, might become neccessary. "Dedicated" in the sense, that people would have to donate tahoe-nodes.

Nanonymous No.7395 [D] >>7396
>>7394
>a almost-decentralized
Hello glownigger.

Nanonymous No.7396 [D][U][F] >>7627
File: 4108cd1fe6bab70b10d0ee64ce2e9b74767787f8db01dcfd384d7247822f6561.gif (dl) (277.19 KiB)
>>7395
>Hello glownigger.
Hello shill.

There is no really decentralized solution for sharing files.

IPFS comes close, but it doesn't support tor. So you'd have decentrality, but would be at risk of being swatted if someone uploads CP.

Tahoe-LAFS works together with tor and saves stuff encrypted, so the owner of a storage server can't access the files stored, and hence can't be made responsible for sharing CP. But Tahoe-LAFS requires a introduction server which publishes peers, so you'd have a single point of failure in that regard.

BTW, you're the inept guy who talks bad about everything, that's not "perfect enough", and thereby indirectly advertizes the even worse stuff that is already out there. Of course you're a jew. If you weren't, you'd be more appreciative of people who try to make the internet into a better place. But you aren't. You just want to make the life of your fellow jews easier, and help them so save a few shekels.

Nanonymous No.7451 [D] >>7473
>>OP
DNS
>promises not to record or subvert listings
>centralized and vulnerable nature

Namecoin
https://bit.namecoin.org/
>blockchain domains
>can work with tor

Why hasn't DNS just been killed already?

I must digress, I understand profit it a big incentive for these change but you must consider the culture leading up to it. These fucking computer nerds and tech culture traitors are expressing their power fantasies in the ways we are describing. They couldn't be alpha chad or be a bully themselves in the age before the rise of the internets, so they made up for it now by displaying insufferable weak Machiavellian attitudes and parasitic monopolistic business practices. Sure they have power now because they bought in on the internet when it was young but that won't last forever. The only problem is their asses are next on the chopping block even if they win.

To be frank the internet should just fucking explode. Most of the retards wouldn't be able to live without it. The competent and productive would rebuild society 'and the internet' just fine without them.

Nanonymous No.7473 [D] >>7480 >>7627
>>7451
>DNS
I like DNS as it's an old protocol that is well understood. There are many tools that work with it, and it works.
It's also better than DoH (DNS over HTTPS) as it gives the people who control the computer/os/network control over name resolution rather than applications.

Nanonymous No.7480 [D]
>>7473
>It's also better than DoH (DNS over HTTPS) as it gives the people who control the computer/os/network control over name resolution rather than applications.
There is nothing inherent with DoH that requires you to use it through an application. Just because there is an option in some programs that allow you to use DoH even though your operating system does not support it yet, it does not mean that it must not be done through the operating system.
>There are many tools that work with it, and it works.
Yes, and the same tools work with DoH.

Nanonymous No.7484 [D] >>7486
>DNS over HTTPS
Is a band-aid, DNS over TLS is considered a little better.

Why does everything have to be so gimmicky being "coins" and all? like wtf

Nanonymous No.7486 [D]
>>7484
>Is a band-aid, DNS over TLS is considered a little better.
Elaborate. From my understanding the main difference is that DNS over TLS traffic is easier to recognize and block. DNS over HTTPS makes the request look like a typical HTTPS request.

Nanonymous No.7627 [D] >>8126
>>6697
>If we're talking imageboards, it would invalidate one of the reasons why they became prominent in the first place.
If you used a WoT for an (presumably anonymous) imageboard it would be an overlay system. People mark posts as spam but their identities in the WoT aren't tied to messages they actually posted in the imageboard. Otherwise it wouldn't be anonymous. And this would work perfectly.
>In case of WoT and Freenet, it states on their own Wiki (Github) that there are already ongoing "trust wars"
>where people filter others out based on opinions and not just spam.
WoTs are subjective. that's not a problem.
>And this is what I am afraid of this turning into - less spam, but everybody is in their shitty bubbles.
No, this is a feature. I don't have to use some insufferable redditor's moderation, I can use whatever set of moderation rules (which are enforced by people in the WoT) I want. I don't actually think Freenet FMS went so far as having multiple WoTs, so that would be a FMS problem and not a WoT problem.
>>6698
>Most of WoTs works using PKI/PKS and these can be MiTM.
What the fuck are you talking about. If it uses PKI it's barely even able to be called a WoT. WoTs should be decentralized and the enire reason they exist is to augment decentralized systems.
>As the name itself says, "trust". WoT is based on trusting others.
And so is statism. A WoT is a convenient way to avoid verifying every single claim in the universe yourself. Meanwhile you happily go to the doctor with zero accountability in your retarded republic and go "ohhh it's regulated everything will be fine" and he gives you AIDS.
>>6699
and this, skiddos, is why anyone who says "lurlberug" is a fucking retard
>>6717
>Lolburg basically says your rights end where mine begin
SJW logic. and barely on topic
>if you aren't donating half your income to blacks you are oppressing them because our ancestors set them back
>>6744
communist logic. even more retarded than anything ITT
>letting people do what they want with their money is oppression

>muh government this muh rules that
you fucking idiots. this is imageboards and messaging protocols we're talking about. none of this has to be nearly regulated as anything in real life

>>6762
>blockchain
shut the fuck up retard
>>7396
CP isn't a problem you fucking moron. the world doesn't revolve around the possibility of CP being posted. "OH NO IT COULD HAVE CP" is a chan meme. and somehow this cancer survived instead of anything good in old chans
>>7473
>I like DNS as it's an old protocol that is well understood.
shut the fuck up retard.

Nanonymous No.8126 [D] >>8169 >>8187
>>7627
>No, this is a feature.
>I can use whatever set of moderation rules (which are enforced by people in the WoT) I want.
So as long as you have a choice of who censors your content then censorship is a good thing? Quite a lack of self awareness there calling everyone else retards.

>CP isn't a problem
>the world doesn't revolve around the possibility of CP being posted.
Your liberty does though.

Nanonymous No.8169 [D] >>8187
>>8126
>So as long as you have a choice of who censors your content then censorship is a good thing?
You would also have the choice to look at the clean, unfiltered, hose of spam and kid-pics, if it pleases you. Seeing as every website in the world practices (and you yourself endorse) moderating posts, it is strictly an improvenment to be able to choose what rules they use.

Nanonymous No.8187 [D]
>>8126
WoT isn't censorship you absolute moron.
>>8169
holy shit we have a non-retard here. and to add on this another important point of WoTs, they can also be used to filter out charlatans who talk on complex subjects.
Without WoT we have garbage like Google search as the only way to dig into a new topic, and it takes months to figure out who are the morons who need to be ignored.