Topic: GLBSE darknet mirror. - page 2. (Read 4245 times)

Quote from: phelix on April 18, 2012, 01:33:50 PM

Wouldn't it be "smarter" to have a bitcoin style sharechain, only the transactions are share movements + bits etc.?

It might even be doable via Bitcoin itself, using the output of "blessed" transactions as shares, recognized by a special client.

this is also available: namecoin

btw: what about a glbse .bit domain?

I've "bought" GBSE.bit, but since I've made the payment haven't heard anything since and that was early yesterday.

matthewh3

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1003

Quote from: kokjo on April 18, 2012, 01:29:44 PM

Wouldn't it be "smarter" to have a bitcoin style sharechain, only the transactions are share movements + bits etc.?

It might even be doable via Bitcoin itself, using the output of "blessed" transactions as shares, recognized by a special client.

this is also available: namecoin

btw: what about a glbse .bit domain?

I think neferio has been looking for the owner of the domain (think someone has already parked it).

matthewh3

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1003

Quote from: matthewh3 on April 18, 2012, 01:26:47 PM

Quote from: kokjo on April 18, 2012, 01:24:32 PM

Quote from: matthewh3 on April 18, 2012, 01:14:21 PM

Anarchy is very socialist so we shouldn't have to put socialist with the anarchy word but with these abominations popping up calling them self anarcho-capitalists its needed.

it depends on the way you describe anarchy.
anarcho-capitalists, might describe anarchy as: "i have the right to kick you in the balls, if i can do it"
while anarcho-socialist, might describe it as: "sure i have the right to kick your balls, but why not be nice to eachother instead?"

If you look at early anarchists and all anarchists until modern times they all had very socialist like views on the redistribution of wealth and stuff.

like the ones in spain? now im on a topic that i have only a little knowledge about.

btw. we are off topic, should we start a thread?

No point it would just get jumped on by all the gun loving yanks they think neo-liberal Obama is socialist! Free education and healthcare is not really socialism just looking after the workers so they can produce more. Also the biggest con of the last century was the painting of the USSR as socialism Undecided

America had a lot of socialists before the McCarthy era.

phelix

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1020

Quote from: matthewh3 on April 18, 2012, 01:26:47 PM

Wouldn't it be "smarter" to have a bitcoin style sharechain, only the transactions are share movements + bits etc.?

It might even be doable via Bitcoin itself, using the output of "blessed" transactions as shares, recognized by a special client.

this is also available: namecoin

btw: what about a glbse .bit domain?

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

Quote from: kokjo on April 18, 2012, 01:24:32 PM

Quote from: matthewh3 on April 18, 2012, 01:14:21 PM

Anarchy is very socialist so we shouldn't have to put socialist with the anarchy word but with these abominations popping up calling them self anarcho-capitalists its needed.

it depends on the way you describe anarchy.
anarcho-capitalists, might describe anarchy as: "i have the right to kick you in the balls, if i can do it"
while anarcho-socialist, might describe it as: "sure i have the right to kick your balls, but why not be nice to eachother instead?"

If you look at early anarchists and all anarchists until modern times they all had very socialist like views on the redistribution of wealth and stuff.

like the ones in spain? now im on a topic that i have only a little knowledge about.

btw. we are off topic, should we start a thread?

matthewh3

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1003

Quote from: kokjo on April 18, 2012, 01:24:32 PM

Quote from: matthewh3 on April 18, 2012, 01:14:21 PM

Anarchy is very socialist so we shouldn't have to put socialist with the anarchy word but with these abominations popping up calling them self anarcho-capitalists its needed.

it depends on the way you describe anarchy.
anarcho-capitalists, might describe anarchy as: "i have the right to kick you in the balls, if i can do it"
while anarcho-socialist, might describe it as: "sure i have the right to kick your balls, but why not be nice to eachother instead?"

If you look at early anarchists and all anarchists until modern times they all had very socialist like views on the redistribution of wealth and stuff.

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

Quote from: matthewh3 on April 18, 2012, 01:14:21 PM

Anarchy is very socialist so we shouldn't have to put socialist with the anarchy word but with these abominations popping up calling them self anarcho-capitalists its needed.

it depends on the way you describe anarchy.
anarcho-capitalists, might describe anarchy as: "i have the right to kick you in the balls, if i can do it"
while anarcho-socialist, might describe it as: "sure i have the right to kick your balls, but why not be nice to eachother instead?"

matthewh3

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1003

Quote from: kokjo on April 18, 2012, 01:13:46 PM

Quote from: Nefario on April 18, 2012, 01:06:23 PM

Thats pretty much what I was thinking, but what kind of lag do you think we could expect by running the backend over Tor?

Also I don't see how the frontend would be unsafe, just vulnerable to being ~~shut down~~ taken over.

not much lag i think, you could always cache the big things, like bid/ask.

i would rater interact directly with the backend, then using a frontend. the code for a frontend could be open and anyone could setup their own(or use a public one), in a similar way as diaspora does it(except they are totally decentralized).

Could you also please run a I2P site too Tongue

matthewh3

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1003

Quote from: kokjo on April 18, 2012, 01:08:20 PM

Quote from: matthewh3 on April 18, 2012, 12:34:25 PM

Quote from: matthewh3 on April 18, 2012, 12:07:43 PM

Just the couple of experts I spoke to said I2P was a more secure design but currently more vulnerable than Tor to attack due to Tor being a bigger network. Like I said before I was also in favour of a .onion site as well. Sorry for the confusion can we stay on topic.

Either they are government agents that lied to you on purpose, or just dumb. I2P is not more secure then Tor(they are about equal)
my personal opinion is that tor is most secure, because of simpler and cleaner code(and of course its more used, but that not relevant when we are talking about the underlying systems).

staying on topic from now on.

Also the US gov (some parts of it anyway) also have good reason to be able to do things without being seen, it's why the CIA or some other agency is quite happy about Bitcoin.

I'm anarcho-socialist so not a big fan of the US or any government really both the UK and US governments are bordering fascist regimes these days both the big parties who can only win the elections are basically the same fighting for the rights of banks ect above the average person needs. Sorry off-topic again Undecided

Please don't all attack me back now for mentioning I'm a anarchist which I have to put socialist after to explain my stand point. I'm a big-fan of bitcoin please all leave it at that Lips sealed

RAGE!!!!!!!! NATIONAL SOCIALISTIC, NAZI COMMUNIST! DUMB INTERNET TROLL RAGE!!!! (... what was the internet law about the nazies again?) Cheesy

btw. i would also describe myself as a anarcho-socialist or nihilist.

Anarchy is very socialist so we shouldn't have to put socialist with the anarchy word but with these abominations popping up calling them self anarcho-capitalists its needed.

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

Quote from: Nefario on April 18, 2012, 01:06:23 PM

Thats pretty much what I was thinking, but what kind of lag do you think we could expect by running the backend over Tor?

Also I don't see how the frontend would be unsafe, just vulnerable to being ~~shut down~~ taken over.

not much lag i think, you could always cache the big things, like bid/ask.

i would rater interact directly with the backend, then using a frontend. the code for a frontend could be open and anyone could setup their own(or use a public one), in a similar way as diaspora does it(except they are totally decentralized).

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

Quote from: matthewh3 on April 18, 2012, 12:34:25 PM

Quote from: matthewh3 on April 18, 2012, 12:07:43 PM

Just the couple of experts I spoke to said I2P was a more secure design but currently more vulnerable than Tor to attack due to Tor being a bigger network. Like I said before I was also in favour of a .onion site as well. Sorry for the confusion can we stay on topic.

Either they are government agents that lied to you on purpose, or just dumb. I2P is not more secure then Tor(they are about equal)
my personal opinion is that tor is most secure, because of simpler and cleaner code(and of course its more used, but that not relevant when we are talking about the underlying systems).

staying on topic from now on.

Also the US gov (some parts of it anyway) also have good reason to be able to do things without being seen, it's why the CIA or some other agency is quite happy about Bitcoin.

I'm anarcho-socialist so not a big fan of the US or any government really both the UK and US governments are bordering fascist regimes these days both the big parties who can only win the elections are basically the same fighting for the rights of banks ect above the average person needs. Sorry off-topic again Undecided

Please don't all attack me back now for mentioning I'm a anarchist which I have to put socialist after to explain my stand point. I'm a big-fan of bitcoin please all leave it at that Lips sealed

RAGE!!!!!!!! NATIONAL SOCIALISTIC, NAZI COMMUNIST! DUMB INTERNET TROLL RAGE!!!! (... what was the internet law about the nazies again?) Cheesy

btw. i would also describe myself as a anarcho-socialist or nihilist.

Nefario

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 513

GLBSE Support [email protected]

Thats pretty much what I was thinking, but what kind of lag do you think we could expect by running the backend over Tor?

Also I don't see how the frontend would be unsafe, just vulnerable to being shut down.

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

Quote from: matthewh3 on April 18, 2012, 12:07:43 PM

Just the couple of experts I spoke to said I2P was a more secure design but currently more vulnerable than Tor to attack due to Tor being a bigger network. Like I said before I was also in favour of a .onion site as well. Sorry for the confusion can we stay on topic.

Either they are government agents that lied to you on purpose, or just dumb. I2P is not more secure then Tor(they are about equal)
my personal opinion is that tor is most secure, because of simpler and cleaner code(and of course its more used, but that not relevant when we are talking about the underlying systems).

staying on topic from now on.

Recommendations on how to run GLBSE in such a way as to have a normal www face but having the data base in the darknet (this would allow darknet users to have access as well), ideally without much lag.

backend stuff in the tor network. frontend server(s), that interact with the backend, through tor.
the .onion address of the backend could be open to the public too, and the frontend(s) are just a simple(and unsafe!) way to interact the real GLBSE.

Nefario

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 513

GLBSE Support [email protected]

I'm thinking I2P myself though because it's got lower latency and much greater bandwidth, the kind needed to be able to run GLBSE over.

Due to network size would less secure than Tor but still a massive step up from the open web.

matthewh3

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1003

Quote from: matthewh3 on April 18, 2012, 12:07:43 PM

Just the couple of experts I spoke to said I2P was a more secure design but currently more vulnerable than Tor to attack due to Tor being a bigger network. Like I said before I was also in favour of a .onion site as well. Sorry for the confusion can we stay on topic.

Either they are government agents that lied to you on purpose, or just dumb. I2P is not more secure then Tor(they are about equal)
my personal opinion is that tor is most secure, because of simpler and cleaner code(and of course its more used, but that not relevant when we are talking about the underlying systems).

staying on topic from now on.

Also the US gov (some parts of it anyway) also have good reason to be able to do things without being seen, it's why the CIA or some other agency is quite happy about Bitcoin.

I'm anarcho-socialist so not a big fan of the US or any government really both the UK and US governments are bordering fascist regimes these days both the big parties who can only win the elections are basically the same fighting for the rights of banks ect above the average person needs. Sorry off-topic again Undecided

Please don't all attack me back now for mentioning I'm a anarchist which I have to put socialist after to explain my stand point. I'm a big-fan of bitcoin please all leave it at that Lips sealed

Nefario

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 513

GLBSE Support [email protected]

Wouldn't it be "smarter" to have a bitcoin style sharechain, only the transactions are share movements + bits etc.?

It might even be doable via Bitcoin itself, using the output of "blessed" transactions as shares, recognized by a special client.

Then we're getting into distributed blockchain based stockmarkets, and I believe that there is already a thread on this, the major problem being speed, markets need to be able to process transactions quickly which requires centralisation (or very VERY fast replication).

Sukrim

legendary

Activity: 2618

Merit: 1007

Wouldn't it be "smarter" to have a bitcoin style sharechain, only the transactions are share movements + bits etc.?

It might even be doable via Bitcoin itself, using the output of "blessed" transactions as shares, recognized by a special client.

Nefario

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 513

GLBSE Support [email protected]

Quote from: matthewh3 on April 18, 2012, 12:07:43 PM

Just the couple of experts I spoke to said I2P was a more secure design but currently more vulnerable than Tor to attack due to Tor being a bigger network. Like I said before I was also in favour of a .onion site as well. Sorry for the confusion can we stay on topic.

Either they are government agents that lied to you on purpose, or just dumb. I2P is not more secure then Tor(they are about equal)
my personal opinion is that tor is most secure, because of simpler and cleaner code(and of course its more used, but that not relevant when we are talking about the underlying systems).

staying on topic from now on.

Recommendations on how to run GLBSE in such a way as to have a normal www face but having the data base in the darknet (this would allow darknet users to have access as well), ideally without much lag.

This would allow the data to be centralised and safe from discovery, such that if a www face is shut down it won't actually effect the data (and operation) of GLBSE itself.

Mathew, the source for Tor is opensournce and freely available. Also the US gov (some parts of it anyway) also have good reason to be able to do things without being seen, it's why the CIA or some other agency is quite happy about Bitcoin.

matthewh3

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1003