/g/ - Technology

install openbsd

[Make a Post]
[X]





Dailystormer.name DOWN? Nanonymous No.6931 [D][U][F][S][L][A][C]
File: 4dafa32891fe9b13878d648da9bfd3764fd42ca610e5ab004d766dbba696a87a.png (dl) (52.66 KiB)
The Daily Stormer's clearnet site seems to be down? Anyone who has any news on this?
the tor site is still online at:

http://dstormer6em3i4km.onion/

Nanonymous No.7028 [D] >>7043
http://dstormer6em3i4km.onion/save-the-stormer-please-send-money-to-keep-this-site-online/

Nanonymous No.7031 [D][U][F] >>7044 >>7239
File: d6928e06abbfb4cb217475e406138ae9834d21f245ca9eb2f9f5634eab5fb778.png (dl) (2.74 MiB)
>p-puhleaze send us munney, we neeeeed dat munny!
Cumskins.
If you don't have enough money to host some wignat larpsite on an old laptop, and hire some volunteer writers to shitpost on your site for you, then maybe you don't deserve to be online.
Wiggers really are retarded, aren't they? Or greedy, or both.

Nanonymous No.7043 [D] >>7046 >>7049 >>7051 >>7094
>>7028
Literally just use the .onion for the site.

>>7931
A single home connection should be able to handle the bandwidth of the dailystormer right? Just text and a few iamges loaded by at most a couple hundred per minute during the high time in usage, right?

Nanonymous No.7044 [D][U][F]
File: b75da24ebd721903d781b780399c231b07778b7a9989e6969161966c8c3d5b88.jpg (dl) (7.06 KiB)
>>7031 not
>>7931

Nanonymous No.7045 [D]
It's just a money grab.
Not surprised.

Nanonymous No.7046 [D] >>7051
>>7043
probably need more than that to handle the DoS attempts they inevitably suffer. Remember that cloudflare dropped them after charlottesville.

Nanonymous No.7049 [D]
>>7043
>A single home connection should be able to handle the bandwidth of the dailystormer right? Just text and a few iamges loaded by at most a couple hundred per minute during the high time in usage, right?
The dailylolmer doesn't have that many users, dumbass. Do you really believe their gay claims of HURR WE VERY POPULER OVER 9000 USER PER HUUR XDDDDD

Nanonymous No.7051 [D]
>>7043
agree with >>7046

And i think they have even more visitors than that, but i don't understand how it can be so expensive to run?

Nanonymous No.7052 [D]
How come only the clearnet site is down?

Nanonymous No.7094 [D] >>7095 >>7099
>>7043
>A single home connection should be able to handle the bandwidth of the dailystormer right?
Wrong. Internet connections (especially upload) are pathetically limited in most of the U.S. More so in Nigeria, where Anglin claims to be (lol).
>Just text and a few iamges [sic] loaded by at most a couple hundred per minute during the high time in usage, right?
Average U.S. internet upload speed is 1.1 megabits (that's megaBITS not megaBYTES) per second. Do the math. Even discounting DoS/DDos attacks, nobody is hosting more than a pitiful little no-name site on their home internet connection (which isn't allowed by consumer ToS for home internet connections, anyway).
Even a relatively small site like The Daily Stormer can't suffice on a home broadband connection, no.

Nanonymous No.7095 [D][U][F] >>7099 >>7100 >>7115
File: 17ebb2f1b5c1c3cde44655778a448f9a2931d8f885504f3ebe8c0a5835f8f713.jpg (dl) (275.86 KiB)
>>7094
>Average U.S. internet upload speed
I don't care about the average US internet upload speed. That figure includes all the dirt poor niggers and beaners with crappy phone plans.
>Do the math.
1.1 mbit/s = 130 kb/s
This nanochan page has 65.46kb total resources as of before I made this post (I cleared the cache before measuring that). Let's say that each daily lolmer page is of a similar size.
Let's say that each daily lolmer page, including images, has to be fully loaded in 10 seconds or the user will click off. Assuming a connection latency of 2 seconds, that means the average speed for one person must be 8.18 kb/s. With those figures, we can support 15.89 concurrent users - let's just round that down to 15. 15 users can ALL BE LOADING A PAGE AT THE SAME TIME before the upload speed is a problem.
With a non-nigger-tier internet connection and good webpage optimization, compression and caching, you can easily support hundreds of users (because each user isn't using the site 24/7). If you got a few friends or volunteers to help host some of the images, you could easily host thousands of users.
The only reason why the faily stormdrain is going down is because stupid wiggers are NOT CAPABLE of managing technical things. They think that begging for shekels is a better idea than using their tiny brains. They think that using a clearnet domain is better than just telling their users to use a tor2web gateway for clearnet access.

Nanonymous No.7099 [D]
>>7095
This
>>7094
Lmfao seriusly i have a 1000/1000 megabits/s for 70$ a month, which i use to host my server with a monthly visitor count of 0.

How the fuck can the internet be so shit in the states?

Nanonymous No.7100 [D][U][F] >>7101 >>7188
File: 870a422b3a32573e618f266415be128f9bc3de803ed5d8dec635e51a3b39eaf6.jpg (dl) (359.86 KiB)
>>7095
This.
Pooindaloo web design is to blame, every time. We must purge the web and its components. However, at least at this exact moment we can try to make do with the garbage we currently have.
Since DS is basically just a static blog, they can easily host the website via IPFS, and every visitor will help host it.
The clearnet link being down is a good thing. They should've only provided it through i2p/tor/etc anyway, as the clearnet is glowinthedark shit.
It's a website that mostly serves text with some flavour images, they can serve webpages compressed with bzip2, get rid of superfluous decorative image bloat, and only include media that is relevant to their articles.
This thread's html (before I made this reply) with bzip2 compression is 4.3KiB. They don't need CSS since that's pajeetshit, they can include links to videos and image thumbnails if they so desire. The 500-reply global meta thread's HTML is 95KiB with bzip2 compression. Their front page is 10KiB bzip2.
Asukafag's >>7095 picture's thumbnail is 7.5KiB. full size 275KB.
I looked at their articles and they're fairly short, they'll never get close to the worst case scenario 95KB
If they do shit right, they can post articles that are between 10-50KB including thumbnails, with possibly multiple 300~KB images.
It really isn't unfeasible on a home internet connection. And we have technology to aid in making it feasible even for 1mbit beaners.

There's no excuse for it. Only incompetence.

Nanonymous No.7101 [D] >>7102 >>7107
>>7100
Just as a note, most normie browsers do not support bzip2. Many browsers including chrom(ium) and furfux derivatives do however support brotli, which is in a similar league to bzip2 compression-wise.

Nanonymous No.7102 [D] >>7103
>>7101
What browsers do support bzip2 then?

Nanonymous No.7103 [D]
>>7102
w3m

Nanonymous No.7107 [D] >>7108 >>7187
>>7101
Fuck I just looked at https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-parameters/http-parameters.xhtml#content-coding and it's not a supported encoding.
Which is odd because bzip2 is literally the best compressor in the world all-around (except for decompression speed, which is still more than enough for web pages) so long as the file run-length-encodes to less than its 900KB block size.
I assumed it was supported, because again, it's literally the best compressor in the world in the small files use case. There's nothing in this world that beats it in the web use case at literally anything except decompression speed.
On my i7 4770k I can decompress bzip2 at 60MB/s+ per core (march=native optimized bzip2 and system, I run gentoo), and bzip2 decompression can be multithreaded.
Even if we assume a processor with a tenth of the performance or 6MiB/s, it would still decompress a 100KiB web page in 16ms. Even less if the decompression is multithreaded. A hundreth would STILL be 166ms, all perfectly acceptable.
There's a new reason the web is insane every day, goddamn.
I bet bzip2 could be easily improved since it's so ancient, imagine just replacing huffman encoding with arithmetic coding in there.

Why don't the kikes and indians behind the web just make it the official and only supported compressed encoding already?

Nanonymous No.7108 [D] >>7110
>>7107
>MUH JOOOS is the reason why bzip crap isn't used!
lzip is better.

Nanonymous No.7110 [D] >>7111 >>7112
>>7108
LZMA is superior for big files. For small files, there doesn't exist anything that beats bzip2 at anything except decompression speed.
We're talking about the web, the files are small.
The cutoff is whenever the file run-length-encodes to less than 900KB, at that point things other than bzip2 enter the competition.
>implying it's not the jews
It's always the jews.

Nanonymous No.7111 [D]
>>7110
>to less than 900KB
Sorry, I meant:
>to more than 900KB

Nanonymous No.7112 [D][U][F]
File: 28b3a5412f653c4f92c78f4aebb1869c6cdabf4b3aaf121561209c0403d41fea.jpg (dl) (47.99 KiB)
>>7110
Uh, excuse me? It's 2019 and we have 5 MB javascript frameworks now? Like, seriously oh my god. This isn't the 1970s anymore, gramps.

Nanonymous No.7115 [D] >>7118 >>7122
>>7095
>Average U.S. internet upload speed
>I don't care about the average US internet upload speed.
I don't care that you don't care. Unless you have some evidence that Anglin has a fiber optic line or something.
>This nanochan page has 65.46kb total resources as of before I made this post (I cleared the cache before measuring that). Let's say that each daily lolmer page is of a similar size.
Let's not. You're comparing apples and Buicks.
>Assuming
Yeah, you're doing a lot of that.

And you utterly failed to address the fact that a site like DS being hosted on a home internet connection is going to result in your account being cancelled and losing your internet connection on day 1. You also failed to address DoS/DDos.

C'mon, I know it's hard to see the screen and keyboard out of your slanty eyes, but you can do better than that.

Nanonymous No.7118 [D] >>7239
>>7115
Anglin allegedly lives in nigger land, so i would guess he do not have a fiber optic line.

Nanonymous No.7122 [D]
>>7115
soycuck

Nanonymous No.7154 [D] >>7184 >>7240
"SAVE THE STORMER: Please Send Money to Keep This Site Online!

Bitmitigate wants $11,000 to continue giving us DDoS mitigation service. We'll need some degree of capital to mitigate this cost or come up with an alternative. "

How the fuck can Bitmitigate take $11,000 a month? And why the fuck does the stormer pay it?

Can't they redirect their domain name dailystormer.name to a tor2web proxy?

Nanonymous No.7160 [D][U][F] >>7161
File: 362eafb6287e06cd2d3405ef52cb858ceb30fdd4e2487d26feb0d4281f5d65c5.gif (dl) (1.22 MiB)
Why hasn't the dailystormer upgraded to V3 .onion address? Is anglin retarded or something? Is Weev dead?

Nanonymous No.7161 [D]
>>7160
What's the benefit of V3 Onion?

Nanonymous No.7184 [D]
>>7154
>How much does DDOS protection actually cost on BitMitigate? It offers three monthly plans: $29 a month (1 IP address), $99 a month (5 IP addresses) and $159 a month (10 IP addresses). Presumably, Anglin got the Stirrer back up after paying Bitmitigate a whopping $29 a month or $348 a year. Even the most expensive plan would have cost him $1,908 a year. The site went down because Anglin or Weev (probably the latter) didn’t sign up a paid plan in spite of having over a month to do so.
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2019/09/19/daily-stormer-comes-back-online/

Nanonymous No.7187 [D]
>>7107
>On my i7 4770k

>using (((Intel))) CPU with (((Intel Management Engine)))
what a retard

Nanonymous No.7188 [D] >>7196
>>7100
you forgot the fact that jews DDOS my site all day and all night

Nanonymous No.7196 [D]
>>7188
>da joos
it's much more likely to be your pajeetware, wigger

Nanonymous No.7205 [D] >>7215
>Pooindaloo web design is to blame, every time.
there's an entire industry devoted to making the web worse in san fransisco. these companies are 99% white with some diversity hires. this has nothing to do with pajeet.

Nanonymous No.7215 [D]
>>7205
the aryan race was literally descended from pajeets, so it's the same damn thing. go ask hortler.

Nanonymous No.7219 [D]
how do you defend against jewish DDOS without using jewish Cloudflare or Bitmitigate?

Nanonymous No.7239 [D] >>7331
>>7118
He let slip he was in Thailand about a year back. How? He quoted the local time as Thai time when it was not relavent to the article in any way. He's got old youtube videos of himself in that area. I'm guessing his family was in the military. Probably still has family or friends there. Plus, they don't care about US politics.

>>7031
The problem is the DDOS'ing. That site doesn't allow much upload (registered users only and very restricted) and is just pushing mostly text and a few pics.
Most likely the readership is down. He goes back and forth on so many issues it's no wonder. He started with that "White Sharia" shit, then defended a gay Black pedo (Michael Jackson). I left when he started with the Yang Gang and pro-commie crap. How can you be pro-White and be OK with anyone on the Left?

Nanonymous No.7240 [D][U][F]
File: deae41bd0e0780a2de71e924ec4ab5861e86031d316661e51a8eab85017d896b.jpg (dl) (92.39 KiB)
>>7154
>$11K
>for what would cost a few bucks in the 90s and 2000s
this is the end result of webshoter supremacy

Nanonymous No.7331 [D] >>7337
>>7239
If he moved the site to Tor only then ddosing wouldn't really be a problem?
And wouldn't something like fail2ban take the worst of it?

Nanonymous No.7337 [D]
>>7331
>If he moved the site to Tor only then ddosing wouldn't really be a problem?
would be, maybe smaller though

Nanonymous No.7489 [D]
Let's face it. AA and Weev have put together a herculean feat considering what they are up against. It's only natural that they need some funding to keep it going.

And while the humor and some opinions might be off the chart sometimes, he does make good points.