Topic: BTCD is no more - page 231. (Read 1328507 times)
Just run a BTCD node
Would the community be willing to run 100+ privacyServer VPS?
P.S. we can certainly start with a smaller number like 10 and see how it handles the load.
P.S. we can certainly start with a smaller number like 10 and see how it handles the load.
Whatever is necessary. A lot of hosting companies offer a free trial. What are the minimum requirements (CPU, RAM) and how long do you need them (3 days, 2 weeks, 1 month)?
James
I can provide a VPS worth ~$100 month. Unsure how many privacyServer would be able to run on it but willing to load it up.
each privacy server needs a separate IP address, run BTCD daemon and NXT. Having a few other coin daemons would be nice too, but different privacyservers can run different coin daemons
Hey how soon do you want the Privacy servers up ? Can you provide a list of components required and i will whip up a puppet deployment.
Would the community be willing to run 100+ privacyServer VPS?
P.S. we can certainly start with a smaller number like 10 and see how it handles the load.
P.S. we can certainly start with a smaller number like 10 and see how it handles the load.
Whatever is necessary. A lot of hosting companies offer a free trial. What are the minimum requirements (CPU, RAM) and how long do you need them (3 days, 2 weeks, 1 month)?
James
I can provide a VPS worth ~$100 month. Unsure how many privacyServer would be able to run on it but willing to load it up.
each privacy server needs a separate IP address, run BTCD daemon and NXT. Having a few other coin daemons would be nice too, but different privacyservers can run different coin daemons
hey guys apologies for the lack of knowledge, but am i reading correctly when i read about Privactservers? will BTCD now be centralized ard rely on Privacy Servers to be anon (VPS) ?
every node has a privacyserver built ini came up with a way to shield your IP address from even your privacy server
however, there need to be some public privacyservers so the network can bootstrap
that means the public privacyservers need to publish their IP address so that other nodes can contact them and through them the rest of SuperNET.
anyone is free to publish their privacyserver's IP address, but if you are using a localhost loopback privacyserver you are publishing your IP address. Granted it is liked to a separate privacyserver account, but I think some timing analysis of the message broadcasts would allow for an attacker to correlate your privacyserver account to your internal account
Anyone mining this?
hey guys apologies for the lack of knowledge, but am i reading correctly when i read about Privactservers? will BTCD now be centralized ard rely on Privacy Servers to be anon (VPS) ?
No nothing would be centralized. I think it is to offset the thoughts in this post:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8849528
If it's possible to disable it for a lite version, IE, people don't have or don't want to use additional bandwidth then these additional privacyServer would pick up some of this slack.
Just my understanding.. perhaps it's not entirely accurate but James will elaborate.
If anyone can run a PrivacyServer, how can that be centralized?
hey guys apologies for the lack of knowledge, but am i reading correctly when i read about Privactservers? will BTCD now be centralized ard rely on Privacy Servers to be anon (VPS) ?
Would the community be willing to run 100+ privacyServer VPS?
I think I figured out how to delink the IP address from the account even to the privacyServer!
What that means is that it could be possible to be communicate with any other node on the SuperNET, but neither knowing the IP address of the other, nor would any privacyServer know this either.
Sounds crazy, but using probabilistic routing (just thought of this while rewriting the UDP code) for each layer of the onion route it is not even known which of the N nodes you send the packet to is the one that will forward it on. This does increase the overall UDP packet traffic by something like 4, but maybe it can be reduced to 1.5 if we accept some delays and retries.
I didnt think I could remove even the knowledge of the IPaddress/account linkage between a node and its privacyServer, but I think it will work and with actually a much simpler internal structure and making everything symmetrical.
So, with the IP details not even required this allows random selection of the privacyServers to use without worry that they are controlled by an attacker. Even if it is, they wont know the packet originated from your node.
This however would require about 100 VPS to handle the expected load and their IP addresses need to be published as otherwise nobody would know who to contact in the first place without some large overhead of random discovery packet sendings.
James
P.S. we can certainly start with a smaller number like 10 and see how it handles the load.
I think I figured out how to delink the IP address from the account even to the privacyServer!
What that means is that it could be possible to be communicate with any other node on the SuperNET, but neither knowing the IP address of the other, nor would any privacyServer know this either.
Sounds crazy, but using probabilistic routing (just thought of this while rewriting the UDP code) for each layer of the onion route it is not even known which of the N nodes you send the packet to is the one that will forward it on. This does increase the overall UDP packet traffic by something like 4, but maybe it can be reduced to 1.5 if we accept some delays and retries.
I didnt think I could remove even the knowledge of the IPaddress/account linkage between a node and its privacyServer, but I think it will work and with actually a much simpler internal structure and making everything symmetrical.
So, with the IP details not even required this allows random selection of the privacyServers to use without worry that they are controlled by an attacker. Even if it is, they wont know the packet originated from your node.
This however would require about 100 VPS to handle the expected load and their IP addresses need to be published as otherwise nobody would know who to contact in the first place without some large overhead of random discovery packet sendings.
James
P.S. we can certainly start with a smaller number like 10 and see how it handles the load.
I could provide up to 6 or 7 VPS instances for initial testing and if feasible, longterm as well.
Would the community be willing to run 100+ privacyServer VPS?
P.S. we can certainly start with a smaller number like 10 and see how it handles the load.
P.S. we can certainly start with a smaller number like 10 and see how it handles the load.
Whatever is necessary. A lot of hosting companies offer a free trial. What are the minimum requirements (CPU, RAM) and how long do you need them (3 days, 2 weeks, 1 month)?
James
is this something that can be done on a laptop from home? I have a pretty decent connection but would need some instructions on what to do.
Would the community be willing to run 100+ privacyServer VPS?
P.S. we can certainly start with a smaller number like 10 and see how it handles the load.
P.S. we can certainly start with a smaller number like 10 and see how it handles the load.
Whatever is necessary. A lot of hosting companies offer a free trial. What are the minimum requirements (CPU, RAM) and how long do you need them (3 days, 2 weeks, 1 month)?
James
I can provide a VPS worth ~$100 month. Unsure how many privacyServer would be able to run on it but willing to load it up.
Hi Guys
First time poster on this thread.
I'm trying to find a forum for bitcoindark multipool mining, does one exist?
First time poster on this thread.
I'm trying to find a forum for bitcoindark multipool mining, does one exist?
You can find the BTCD multipool links in my signature as well as a link to the thread on this forum.
P.S. If anybody is on a Mac, can you try to build following the instructions on https://github.com/jl777/btcd
It is still a dev version and can be any state of bugginess, but the build process can be verified and this will help save time. So, the question is if it builds and links. you can run it too, but please dont keep it live as I am trying to keep a controlled test going
I'll try that, but might take me till the weekend since I'm short on time
Would the community be willing to run 100+ privacyServer VPS?
P.S. we can certainly start with a smaller number like 10 and see how it handles the load.
P.S. we can certainly start with a smaller number like 10 and see how it handles the load.
Whatever is necessary. A lot of hosting companies offer a free trial. What are the minimum requirements (CPU, RAM) and how long do you need them (3 days, 2 weeks, 1 month)?
James
I'm sure the dev team can use our continuing donation fund to pay for a large amount of VPS systems.
Hi Guys
First time poster on this thread.
I'm trying to find a forum for bitcoindark multipool mining, does one exist?
on page 1 there are multipool listings enjoy First time poster on this thread.
I'm trying to find a forum for bitcoindark multipool mining, does one exist?
Hi Guys
First time poster on this thread.
I'm trying to find a forum for bitcoindark multipool mining, does one exist?
First time poster on this thread.
I'm trying to find a forum for bitcoindark multipool mining, does one exist?
Would the community be willing to run 100+ privacyServer VPS?
P.S. we can certainly start with a smaller number like 10 and see how it handles the load.
P.S. we can certainly start with a smaller number like 10 and see how it handles the load.
Whatever is necessary. A lot of hosting companies offer a free trial. What are the minimum requirements (CPU, RAM) and how long do you need them (3 days, 2 weeks, 1 month)?
James
Given say $10 a month per server, $1000 is peanuts.
Would the community be willing to run 100+ privacyServer VPS?
P.S. we can certainly start with a smaller number like 10 and see how it handles the load.
P.S. we can certainly start with a smaller number like 10 and see how it handles the load.
Whatever is necessary. A lot of hosting companies offer a free trial. What are the minimum requirements (CPU, RAM) and how long do you need them (3 days, 2 weeks, 1 month)?
James
Would the community be willing to run 100+ privacyServer VPS?
I think I figured out how to delink the IP address from the account even to the privacyServer!
What that means is that it could be possible to be communicate with any other node on the SuperNET, but neither knowing the IP address of the other, nor would any privacyServer know this either.
Sounds crazy, but using probabilistic routing (just thought of this while rewriting the UDP code) for each layer of the onion route it is not even known which of the N nodes you send the packet to is the one that will forward it on. This does increase the overall UDP packet traffic by something like 4, but maybe it can be reduced to 1.5 if we accept some delays and retries.
I didnt think I could remove even the knowledge of the IPaddress/account linkage between a node and its privacyServer, but I think it will work and with actually a much simpler internal structure and making everything symmetrical.
So, with the IP details not even required this allows random selection of the privacyServers to use without worry that they are controlled by an attacker. Even if it is, they wont know the packet originated from your node.
This however would require about 100 VPS to handle the expected load and their IP addresses need to be published as otherwise nobody would know who to contact in the first place without some large overhead of random discovery packet sendings.
James
P.S. we can certainly start with a smaller number like 10 and see how it handles the load.
I think I figured out how to delink the IP address from the account even to the privacyServer!
What that means is that it could be possible to be communicate with any other node on the SuperNET, but neither knowing the IP address of the other, nor would any privacyServer know this either.
Sounds crazy, but using probabilistic routing (just thought of this while rewriting the UDP code) for each layer of the onion route it is not even known which of the N nodes you send the packet to is the one that will forward it on. This does increase the overall UDP packet traffic by something like 4, but maybe it can be reduced to 1.5 if we accept some delays and retries.
I didnt think I could remove even the knowledge of the IPaddress/account linkage between a node and its privacyServer, but I think it will work and with actually a much simpler internal structure and making everything symmetrical.
So, with the IP details not even required this allows random selection of the privacyServers to use without worry that they are controlled by an attacker. Even if it is, they wont know the packet originated from your node.
This however would require about 100 VPS to handle the expected load and their IP addresses need to be published as otherwise nobody would know who to contact in the first place without some large overhead of random discovery packet sendings.
James
P.S. we can certainly start with a smaller number like 10 and see how it handles the load.
Jump to: