j"19HxigV4QyBv3tHpQVcUEQyq1pzZVdoAutM @From gmkarl@gmail.com Sun May 24 14:59:24 2020
Return-Path: <gmkarl@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org
Delivered-To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pglaf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61C9411C0A08
for <cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org>; Sun, 24 May 2020 14:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at pglaf.org
Received: from pglaf.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (mail.pglaf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id hyvGyYKs76ic for <cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org>;
Sun, 24 May 2020 14:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.85.166.177;
helo=mail-il1-f177.google.com; envelope-from=gmkarl@gmail.com;
receiver=<UNKNOWN>
Received: from mail-il1-f177.google.com (mail-il1-f177.google.com
[209.85.166.177])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pglaf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1738A11C09F1
for <cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org>; Sun, 24 May 2020 14:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-f177.google.com with SMTP id y17so13606982ilg.0
for <cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org>; Sun, 24 May 2020 14:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=m31VnwlMAe6mLzv2S9vSAe5gmsM2j7O0t8lnnM5gPzQ=;
b=OnugjwP5zeWBKuXyclwlBtmTx9NL4kCslllTGXyXKMpDpFVdjdB3zmpZ5a+x9vRAl1
K8h3Ihe30OjRF4VXTL2nWe2cELIZfT3U4269Ab9c5Dhin1HZu2eB8N/B0wgDAsE0o9WW
Cmgwix7qM/XsTobtbkM+aRAz54XHBgPMJQS3Blv4L8fzT7DRh5CrBKUg4HrTKtbfaFaY
wSwCjX7yQD4U8SkZrxcPcl3MeJcjgVu7H4eZyB0BARhzDNTolfevKuAlLneXtuOKaNp6
KeywwYwSCRGpQr7Ag6rCRjTWRbhfG3lxocFOCj9sHcaZADbNSgfoUZ9RSLtCQq0xj4bC
UwWQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=m31VnwlMAe6mLzv2S9vSAe5gmsM2j7O0t8lnnM5gPzQ=;
b=rUxLsA1G8DafbdB8y5+OYLPYMElUGGIVYv2cYn/3aFw0880Si8+kSbuBXWTFZvFwpU
wdDC39z0Es0Dw7vDsI8SNk2k6q1kxtUo+vmIOa+rLMTOTz5WBEfDQbyvRSeTefE3zpyp
0ztVvYQkIb3eIXUXCQper8x0eV9aetZP8zHc/7bq4jOBwz5xbPPBQbokdrn+3ZwlVNwD
w8sqLAg0p5H7wqbr9GhfCssT3OzSuhBJSILoEy6S2YeonUdFvbM6wK7U1lVolwYkN/ww
P8vG/P9Qktl45sn9sJnlks5oQQ9cFkqmmcUzuCWi2kmOCyR+a807YUSk1aad6ZZ4eJXm
YOKg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531kIvRbuBVZeWkQYjrHwp5TWEJowFLeG0HMtO2i0lblX/UZX9o/
RtfKcDy4v5zqVF+uAV5SpCH9JiRBnzZswPHx318=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzb25q6++2Wuwi9n2NrDzzVLpLpjunVkFwcyzeLKcC/txaZHm4nmcvQENygDjoB58i41Tdx6Gfx5viIWlUws80=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:f4e:: with SMTP id
y14mr22543346ilj.165.1590357499004;
Sun, 24 May 2020 14:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <672420898.282631.1570827900484.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
<2118666900.3440731.1575920269908@mail.yahoo.com>
<1191736431.32971.1588926918162@mail.yahoo.com>
<neV76MmonSLur_dyXe3hDgcMks6RulPXDYu3QGxqvEHM9MePzJM-PDGA-Jj95cjVePqxX8k3JMMiAGcsl7rBHse1-jq0rpIMMR1Rqx8HbZg=@protonmail.com>
<483726616.141057.1588961857035@mail.yahoo.com>
<20200510201204.D59DA11C0166@pglaf.org>
<CAD2Ti2-724D8Xhz7_uv4Y0FjX1t+rNjv5fZDbBkDjdaxY+AAKw@mail.gmail.com>
<20200512223932.0935311C024C@pglaf.org>
<570466912.1228414.1589928094263@mail.yahoo.com>
<FLSi66C7FK8tDpzTXP1Sy5eug6IKX7FF5ujEduJ45TKJRO5hlxuvKgonyrqHitrH1h6x_U-VkxZI42VDpQ7gUy3tw5ZXFbydH2fvEgZFvqQ=@protonmail.com>
<1392961332.1744206.1590040517752@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1392961332.1744206.1590040517752@mail.yahoo.com>
From: Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 17:58:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CALL-=e4f5j4u0UpCeeqajRg=2ArLto7jYf9f3Lxn_46vYGHSxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: tor replacement - was Re: Box for simple Tor node.
To: jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com>
Cc: "other.arkitech" <other.arkitech@protonmail.com>,
cypherpunks <cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cb4c2e05a66bf58c"
X-BeenThere: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Cypherpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks.lists.cpunks.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.cpunks.org/mailman/options/cypherpunks>,
<mailto:cypherpunks-request@lists.cpunks.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks>
List-Post: <mailto:cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cypherpunks-request@lists.cpunks.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.cpunks.org/mailman/listinfo/cypherpunks>,
<mailto:cypherpunks-request@lists.cpunks.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 21:59:24 -0000
--000000000000cb4c2e05a66bf58c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
A general purpose network sounds nice. Everything is doable.
What do you think of forking the codebase of an existing network, like tor
or gnunet or one of the newer examples from anonymity research?
On Thu, May 21, 2020, 1:55 AM jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 20, 2020, 07:27:40 PM PDT, other.arkitech <
> other.arkitech@protonmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original =
Message =E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90
> On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 10:41 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Algorithm-agnostic anonymization network.
>
> Let's say we are agreed that a new anonymization network should be
> implemented. One problem is that advances in such networks generally
> require implementing entirely new networks to check out new algorithms an=
d
> new features, such improvements are strongly deterred. After all, that's
> one reason that TOR doesn't get as many improvements as we might like.
> (Another reason is that it is financed, at least in part, by people who a=
re
> hostile to a "too-good" anonymization system.)
>
> Sure, we could implement a new set of nodes, hopefully at least 1000 in
> number. I think that ordinary, residential users should be able to run
> nodes. Internet services are provided with as much as 1 terabyte/month
> capacity, and possibly unlimited as well. (CenturyLink 1 Gbps, for
> example) We could implement a new onion-routing system, akin to TOR bu=
t
> with some improvements, most prominently adding chaff. So far, so good.
> But there may be other ideas, other improvements that people might want t=
o
> try out.
>
> I've already proposed that it should be possible for just about every nod=
e
> to be an output node. Possibly every node should be an input node, as
> well. The big impediment to this is that people naturally want to avoid
> the potential legal harassment they might get if their IP node sent out
> gigabytes of 'in the clear' forbidden data. My ideas for a solution?
> Output data could be encrypted, enough to make it unreadable except by th=
e
> end recipient. The operator of an output node that emits only
> seemingly-random data would be hard to hold legally responsible for that
> forbidden content, since nobody expects him to know how to convert it int=
o
> plaintext. And/or, the data can be output into two streams, which would =
be
> XOR'd with each other only by the intended recipient to find the data.
>
> And, this network could also run different anonymization algorithms,
> simultaneously. Onion-routing may have its own limitations. Somebody
> might have a good idea for an alternative system. Why shouldn't it be
> possible to serve two algorithms? Or dozens? How about Bittorrent as
> well? Imagine 1000 nodes, each equipped with a 10-terabyte hard drive?
>
> Jim Bell
>
>
>
> >Hi,
> >I am preparing a draft of a draft for a spec of what I think would be th=
e
> ideal complimentary anonymization overlay that fits on the already runnin=
g
> distributed system I am working on, which is USPS and is very good.
> It would be great if many ideas arise in this list so we can start
> focusing a conversation. My personal interes is to achieve a system that
> can provide Sybil protection for voting systems. Which is the reason Tor
> cannot be used with USPS, since one could create millions of colluding ev=
il
> nodes and ditch the system. I limit it using IPv4 because it is very easy
> to enforce an homogeneously distributed network controlling the maximum
> number of nodes/votes per IP. This limit will grow as the IPs are fille=
d
> with voting power.
> I already have the Sysbil protection implemented and the network of nodes
> running exchanging encrypted traffic about consensus. The only thing I ha=
ve
> left are two things:
> onion routing (or a faster alternative that doesn't exist but I am
> researching), chaff traffic.
>
>
> Jim Bell's comments follow:
>
> I hope that what I've suggested, an anonymization constellation that can
> run multiple algorithms simultaneously, is practical and can be implement=
ed
> successfully. I suppose what I'm describing amounts to multi-tasking, an=
d
> my understanding is that's not trivial. What does everyone think about
> this? Can it be done?
>
> ...and probably more considerations. I am not expert in anon overlays, bu=
t
> perhaps we can brainstorm so I can become one : )
>
> Thanks for reading
> OA
>
>
>
--000000000000cb4c2e05a66bf58c
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"auto">A general purpose network sounds nice.=C2=A0 Everything i=
s doable.<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">What do you think of=
forking the codebase of an existing network, like tor or gnunet or one of =
the newer examples from anonymity research?</div></div><br><div class=3D"gm=
ail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, May 21, 2020, 1:55=
AM jim bell <<a href=3D"mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com">jdb10987@yahoo.com</=
a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 =
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style=3D"fo=
nt-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div></=
div>
<div><span style=3D"color:rgb(38,40,42)">On Wednesday, May 20, 2020=
, 07:27:40 PM PDT, other.arkitech <<a href=3D"mailto:other.arkitech@prot=
onmail.com" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">other.arkitech@protonmail.=
com</a>> wrote:</span><br></div></div><div id=3D"m_-6109827223358038811y=
dp75df5507yahoo_quoted_0469719548"><div style=3D"font-family:'Helvetica=
Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a">
<div><br></div><div><div id=3D"m_-6109827223358038811ydp75d=
f5507yiv1455275847"><div><div><br clear=3D"none"></div><div>=E2=80=90=E2=80=
=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90 Original Message =E2=80=90=
=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90=E2=80=90<br clear=3D"none"></=
div><div id=3D"m_-6109827223358038811ydp75df5507yiv1455275847yqt85983"><div=
> On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 10:41 PM, jim bell <<a href=3D"mailto:jdb1098=
7@yahoo.com" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">jdb10987@yahoo.com</a>>=
; wrote:<br clear=3D"none"></div><div> <br clear=3D"none"></div><blockquote=
type=3D"cite"><div style=3D"font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,san=
s-serif;font-size:13px"><div><br clear=3D"none"></div><div dir=3D"ltr">Algo=
rithm-agnostic anonymization network.<br clear=3D"none"></div><div dir=3D"l=
tr"><br clear=3D"none"></div><div dir=3D"ltr">Let's say we are agreed t=
hat a new anonymization network should be implemented.=C2=A0 One problem is=
that advances in such networks generally=C2=A0 require implementing entire=
ly new networks to check out new algorithms and new features, such improvem=
ents are strongly deterred.=C2=A0 After all, that's one reason that TOR=
doesn't get as many improvements as we might like.=C2=A0 (Another reas=
on is that it is financed, at least in part, by people who are hostile to a=
"too-good" anonymization system.)<br clear=3D"none"></div><div d=
ir=3D"ltr"><br clear=3D"none"></div><div dir=3D"ltr">Sure, we could impleme=
nt a new set of nodes, hopefully at least 1000 in number. I think that ordi=
nary, residential users should be able to run nodes. Internet services are =
provided with as much as 1 terabyte/month capacity, and possibly unlimited =
as well.=C2=A0 (CenturyLink 1 Gbps, for example)=C2=A0 =C2=A0 We could impl=
ement a new onion-routing system, akin to TOR but with some improvements, m=
ost prominently adding chaff.=C2=A0 So far, so good.=C2=A0 But there may be=
other ideas, other improvements that people might want to try out.<br clea=
r=3D"none"></div><div dir=3D"ltr"><br clear=3D"none"></div><div dir=3D"ltr"=
>I've already proposed that it should be possible for just about every =
node to be an output node.=C2=A0 Possibly every node should be an input nod=
e, as well.=C2=A0 =C2=A0The big impediment to this is that people naturally=
want to avoid the potential legal harassment they might get if their IP no=
de sent out gigabytes of 'in the clear' forbidden data.=C2=A0 My id=
eas for a solution?=C2=A0 Output data could be encrypted, enough to make it=
unreadable except by the end recipient.=C2=A0 The operator of an output no=
de that emits only seemingly-random data would be hard to hold legally resp=
onsible for that forbidden content, since nobody expects him to know how to=
convert it into plaintext.=C2=A0 And/or, the data can be output into two s=
treams, which would be XOR'd with each other only by the intended recip=
ient to find the data.=C2=A0=C2=A0<br clear=3D"none"></div><div dir=3D"ltr"=
><br clear=3D"none"></div><div dir=3D"ltr">And, this network could also run=
different anonymization algorithms, simultaneously.=C2=A0 Onion-routing ma=
y have its own limitations.=C2=A0 Somebody might have a good idea for an al=
ternative system.=C2=A0 Why shouldn't it be possible to serve two algor=
ithms?=C2=A0 Or dozens?=C2=A0 How about Bittorrent as well?=C2=A0 Imagine 1=
000 nodes, each equipped with a 10-terabyte hard drive?=C2=A0=C2=A0<br clea=
r=3D"none"></div><div dir=3D"ltr"><br clear=3D"none"></div><div dir=3D"ltr"=
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Jim Bell<br =
clear=3D"none"></div></div></blockquote></div><div><br clear=3D"none"></div=
><div><br clear=3D"none"></div><div>>Hi,<br clear=3D"none"></div><div>&g=
t;I am preparing a draft of a draft for a spec of what I think would be the=
ideal complimentary anonymization overlay that fits on the already running=
distributed system I am working on, which is USPS and is very good. <br cl=
ear=3D"none">It would be great if many ideas arise in this list so we can s=
tart focusing a conversation. My personal interes is to achieve a system th=
at can provide Sybil protection for voting systems. Which is the reason Tor=
cannot be used with USPS, since one could create millions of colluding evi=
l nodes and ditch the system. I limit it using IPv4 because it is very easy=
to enforce an homogeneously distributed network controlling the maximum nu=
mber of nodes/votes =C2=A0 per IP. This limit will grow as the IPs are fill=
ed with voting power.<br clear=3D"none">I already have the Sysbil protectio=
n implemented and the network of nodes running exchanging encrypted traffic=
about consensus. The only thing I have left are two things:<br clear=3D"no=
ne">onion routing (or a faster alternative that doesn't exist but I am =
researching), chaff traffic.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div dir=3D=
"ltr">Jim Bell's comments follow:</div><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><div =
dir=3D"ltr">I hope that what I've suggested, an anonymization constella=
tion that can run multiple algorithms simultaneously, is practical and can =
be implemented successfully.=C2=A0 I suppose what I'm describing amount=
s to multi-tasking, and my understanding is that's not trivial.=C2=A0 W=
hat does everyone think about this?=C2=A0 Can it be done?<br clear=3D"none"=
><br clear=3D"none">...and probably more considerations. I am not expert in=
anon overlays, but perhaps we can brainstorm so I can become one : )<br cl=
ear=3D"none"><br clear=3D"none">Thanks for reading<br clear=3D"none">OA<br =
clear=3D"none"><br clear=3D"none"></div><div><br clear=3D"none"></div></div=
></div></div>
</div>
</div></div></blockquote></div>
--000000000000cb4c2e05a66bf58c--
message/rfc822binary(2a66420380ade8d7a3b2f43fce1ee02f49dd2106
https://whatsonchain.com/tx/3abbd9d9652a2e04e1e7ac6e5dcf6067b33747b958c19e94dd8d210ea57daf45