CIYAM, yeah you can do really cool apps even within the walled garden of what is provided by web standards. For example, as you may know Blockchain.info was upgraded and now their wallet is fully encrypted client-side instead of server-side.

However there are always things developers would like to do which fit within a security sandbox model (e.g. Android OS‘ s sandbox) but which can‘t be done with the standard features provided by slow moving web standards. For example, tighter integration with other apps. On Android OS, I can write an Activity, Service, ContentProvider, or Intent which can interact with other apps in the system within the security model. I explained some the ramifications of this more deeply.

This transition to apps as a more general sandbox than the more limited web browser sandbox is epic and is underway in a massive paradigm shift. We could now leverage this to provide high latency network anonymity so we can do Tor correctly.

I do make the point in the OP that the web is already moving towards stateful because of the advantages applications can offer over a walled garden (meaning inflexibility or inability to change and extend some aspects of what is available by default) stateless or limited stateful HTML5 model. And my point is that provides an opportunity to do network anonymity correct with high latency, since Tor is ostensibly doomed by its low latency requirement as outlined in the OP.

Cookies are very limited form of state insufficient for the level of sophistication that apps are adding over the walled garden web browser.

The OP is talking about IP address anonymity, which is Tor’s raison d’être. So I don’t know why you are conflating this aspect of network anonymity with the nonencryption of public data which was never intended to be private. Sorry if I may be blunt (in spite of your reply constituting praise by faint damning), your understanding of the issues is too limited to fully comprehend. But hopefully this reply will help move you along towards the next level of understanding. One could say the OP post is responsible for readers not getting it, because it is written in a modular generative essence style where not every instance of ramification and implication is spelled out and readers have to take the modular variables presented and formulate all the ramification permutations. But really if I tried to explain it to people are not yet up-to-speed, it would need to be about 10 pages long. And I don't have time for that right now. But I guess that is what this dicussion thread is for.

P.S. No insult intended. Thanks for the feedback.

P.S. I see we have more n00bs voting No and understandably too timid to reveal their myopic or irrationally biased justification. Perfect. The record will be here for when they get to eat humble pie.


Slick marketing has caused you to think these systems will be able to do things which they can not possibly do based on fundamental technical issues in their designs.

I saw that video nearly a year ago. My point remains from my prior reply to you upthread that MaidSafe and Storj are based on minimizing the amount of duplicate hard disk space employed for redundancy and their economic unit is backed by hard disk space. Afaik, they have no mechanism to charge for bandwidth used[1], rather only a quid pro quo exchange of equivalent proof-of-storage (via their verify algorithm I presume), thus they are not applicable for serving files to the public-at-large. They simply are not designed for hosting web sites. That is not their target market. Their design and target market is personal storage for your (or your enterprise’s) files (possibly shared with a few other people, but not the public-at-large) which you are access perhaps up to several times per day, but not 1000s of times per second. And afaics, they don’t solve the anonymity of the requesters IP address for data that is public to the public-at-large.

You miss a fundamental economic point that bandwidth is orders-of-magnitude more costly than hard disk space at any scale above a few accesses per day on average, yet bandwidth is also amazingly inexpensive too (which means it is very hard to pay-per-packet as you need some form of sub-micro-payments system or to trade in kind bandwidth-for-bandwidth).

The solution for anonymity for the requester of public files and for anonymity of the server is to make the improvements to onion routing that I have laid out in the OP, to build out the Stateful Web, and for the servers to be hidden services.

For MaidSafe, I suppose clients could pay per access directly to nodes on the DHT, but the technical design for where the data is stored appears to be based on randomness combined with a ranking algorithm, that does not factor in incentives to compete for the greater orders-of-magnitude revenue from selling bandwidth or in the absence of payment-per-access as is the case in the current design, then the incentive to game the system to not store fragments that are accessed frequently. There is a very complex game theory analysis that needs to be made of the system. In short, I suspect MaidSafe’s model is too complex to fully model and characterize. They can’t be using a quid pro quo exchange of bandwidth because the reciprocal exchanges would not be fungible in real-time, i.e. the other party may not possess a data fragment that the counter party needs at that instant (due to the randomized requirement of the fragments that is the fundamental feature of the system, there is no way this could be made fungible). I suppose that since only the owner of the original data can determine the address of a fragment, then DDoS on a fragment will cause the fragment to get blocked.

The concept of storing a file on multiple servers so we don’t have to depend on just one, is orthogonal, has always been the case with corporate scale servers, and such algorithms can be adapted to different architectures such as multiple hidden services or sitting behind one hidden service.

MaidSafe’s self-encryption and splitting a file up into sand grain sized (in terms of DHT address space collision probability) fragments is useful because in theory it means even the server nodes have no way to know anything about—and thus can’t discriminate against—the content of the data it is serving. And in theory the user doesn’t have to evaluate the reputation of any server node as would be necessary for traditional server. In theory this feature could be very valuable for files shared to the public-at-large. But traffic analysis can be used to correlate these fragments for files that have high traffic public-at-large access.

But I think that valuable portion of the system design can be split from the portion that tries to manage how many copies are stored on the system. So I think instead a flat economic model can be employed to incentivize multiple nodes to store the fragments. And put the decision of this choice and algorithm strategy in the hands of the client. This would be much less complex (easier to prove formally), much more decentralized, and much simpler. Then each node could sit behind a hidden service for sufficient IP address level anonymity.

The technical specifics of MaidSafe’s design is very sketchy and vague at this point. I seriously doubt whether they can handle the complexity and deliver the reliability they claim. The MaidSafe MaidSafe system is a complex state machine (layered on top of a DHT) and I have not seen a formal analysis of all possible states including DDoS and the game theory of attacks on it. To debate this would go into more technical detail than I care to enter right now on this forum.

In terms of David Lavine’s analogy to an ant colony, note each ant has 250,000 brain cells of entropy to configure itself uniquely within the colony (not just the 4 categories Lavine wants to presume) and the collective state machine of the ant colony has the 10 million brain cells of a human brain.

Also listening to David ramble on, he is not person who can hit directly to the generative essence of an algorithm with precision. Rather he rambles on vague analogies. He appears to be smart (salesman with some technical acumen) but appearing tousled and lacking of the eloquent sharp precision of a highly accomplished engineer. For example, never did he address any bandwidth economics which should be one of the first things out of his mouth in a presentation.

Accomplished engineers can readily detect bullshit. I smell some but I think he believes in his work even if can’t quite pull it all together further than vague explanations. About a year ago I tried to read technical descriptions at their website and it was a maze of vagueness and technobabble without complete formalization and citations.

[1]

G.Paul and J.Irvine, A Protocol For Storage Limitations and Upgrades in Decentralised Networks. http://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/49515/1/Paul_Irvine_SIN14_upgrades_in_decentralised_networks.pdf Quote which showed that only 1% of network users were providing 73% of the network bandwidth needed to Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third- party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author. Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). SIN ’14 Sep 09 - 11 2014, Glasgow, Scotland UK ACM 978-1-4503-3033-6/14/09. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2659651.2659724. share les. In an earlier study carried out on the Gnutella peer-to-peer network, Adar et al. presented in [1] that 70% of users were not sharing any les, and that 1% of all users were actually providing responses to over half of network requests. Early peer-to-peer networks were more focused on con- serving bandwidth, since they were typically designed for the purpose of sharing popular les between users quickly, with- out relying on a central server. The MaidSafe decentralised network, while focused more on the provision of storage, faces similar challenges, where malicious users could poten- tially use up all of the storage capacity of the network.

Europeans apparently don't have a clue since they will repeat their megadeath from the 1940s again in the next decade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Socialism in its generative essence is any system where the government is a very large percentage of the GDP, because implicitly it is in control of the economy and directing the redistribution of resources not for free market profit but for the "benefit of the society".

Europe precisely falls into this most generalized essence of socialism. As well you can factor in the Universal Health Care (not for profit but for social benefit), the strong political power of the debilitating unions, the government bailouts for example for Peugot, banks, etc..

Please stop wasting my time. I am busy programming for profit and don't have time for your ignorant bliss.

You entirely missed the point that knowledge can only be owned by the creator of the knowledge. It can't be transferred nor financed. I explained that the prior link I provided. Now please stop repeating you same nonsense illogic about the tyranny of property ownership, because it is entirely inapplicable as I have shown.

You entirely missed the point that knowledge can only be owned by the creator of the knowledge. It can't be transferred nor financed. I explained that the prior link I provided. Now please stop repeating you same nonsense illogic about the tyranny of property ownership, because it is entirely inapplicable as I have shown.

I have a new $240 (mid-range) Samsung. The hardware build quality is excellent, but the built-in software sucks (I have laundry list of usability design flaws piling up in my programming TODO list)! Koreans appear to not be very good at user interfaced software (noticed this on a Samsung feature phone in the past too). I am doing something about this now, programming feverishly and soon will have a new Android app out to replace this crappy bundled Contacts, Messager, and Dialer. I expect millions of downloads on Google Play.


Indeed I noticed this on the Google text-to-speech service that is bundled. But the awesome structural design of Android OS is anyone can offer a drop-in replacement ContentProvider, Service, Intent, or Activity.

Sorry Google has let the open source cat out of the bag and there is no way for them to put it back in the walled garden where the iPhone (and HTML5) is. There is no comparison. Android OS will stomp iOS into the dust. iOS is a dead-end and within 5 years it will be in single-digit market share (and your iPhone will be an expensive paperweight), which is a death spiral.

I am programming the OS so I know what I speak. You don't.

P.S. I think Google knows they can't reel it back into a walled garden and doesn't want to. They are just trying to gain enough leverage to force licensees to upgrade to the latest versions of the OS in order to prevent the fragmentation that had plagued Android versus iOS. And this seems to be working with Kitkat at 30% Android share and projected to surpass 50% within 6 months.

http://commonsware.com/blog/2014/04/09/storage-situation-removable-storage.html

I guess it didn't register in the pea you call your brain that some lazyfart created a duplicate thread on the same issue, and I want my point to be seen by any one who reads only one of the two duplicate threads.


You are too retarded to explain your position so I can rip your illogic to shreds. Are you sure you want to get into an abstract semantic debate with me given I am programmer who makes my living programming in higher level semantics?

Ostensibly iOS (iPhone) chose HTML5, but Android OS will be the victor over HTML5.

user18444, we no longer live in a resource scarcity paradigm (its only the peaking socialism, misallocation of resources with $227 trillion global debt that gives the illusion of resource scarcity) rather now in a knowledge paradigm. Wealth of knowledge is not uniformly distributed.

user18444, we no longer live in a resource scarcity paradigm (its only the peaking socialism, misallocation of resources with $227 trillion global debt that gives the illusion of resource scarcity) rather now in a knowledge paradigm. Wealth of knowledge is not uniformly distributed.

I need to make the last reply on our discussion, so I can also post it to that other thread as well.

Please don't delete your prior post as you need to be able to find this discussion in your recent posts list.


You reminded we need to inform the user as to limitations of anonymity.

Tangentially I note this thread is about to attain 40,000 Views.

I request we continue to delete our upthread posts on each reply as I have done, at least for as long as this sub-thread is of reasonable length. Hopefully we can reach agreement now.


I've done extensive thinking about the breakage of the encryption and that is why I favor Lamport signatures, Mceliece public key cryptography, and not using public key (i.e. using symmetric cryptography) as much as possible.

There is no reasonably trusted quantum computing resistant Diffie-Hellman key exchange, so I am thinking we can eliminate it from an improved Tor by sending a Nonce to the prospective relay encrypted with its public key, then the encrypted (in our public key) reply must include the Nonce. The entire reason Diffie-Helman is needed in Tor is because the prior relay hop could inject its only symmetric key instead.

All encryption will eventually be broken and I made this point in a long discussion (READ THIS LINKED POST!) on this forum with smooth about how all anonymity can eventually be broken ex post facto. But as I stated in my first reply to you, this requires the adversary save all the data. For example, a global national security PRISM adversary can’t save the data mixes we do offline.

This is why I am arguing to use only quantum resistant encryption for anonymity aspects and to use much larger key lengths than we think are necessary.

Note I will be cross-posting our excellent discussion to that thread I linked in my first reply to you.

Being able to read the brain’s thoughts could indeed make anonymity much more challenging, but we are at least a decade from that being something the authorities can realistically deploy and even then it will probably require they get proximity to your brain. Our physical bodies are going to become a burden. Hopefully by that time we can upload our brain to a computer, put our body into zombie state, continue thinking there on the computer, then download it back to biological brain copy later. In that way, we could side-step the authorities anew. You see technology is not asymmetric in support of socialism. We just have to be willing to find the solutions for liberty.

I hope I have inspired some libertarian readers!

Some significant incoherence in the OP has been corrected. Please try re-reading it.

Cross-posting from other thread...


The point you are missing is that in a free market, you don’t need to trust your ISP as competition will provide you with options.

What you don’t believe or fail to understand is that regulatory capture of your government is precisely what stifles competition. This is what the quote from Eric S. Raymond about “asymmetric power” means.

So yes the monopolistic telcos are on their knees praying that you will trust the government more than the free market, because the more power you give to the government to regulate, the stronger their monopolies will become.

This has been proven over and over to always be the outcome in all of recorded human history. The mathematical reason was explained by Mancur Olson’s book, The Logic of Collective Action.

I don’t expect you to be able to wrap your mind around this, because the reason socialists are socialists is because they don’t have the IQ to reason rationally at this high level.

And evolution is at work (over and over throughout recorded human history since Mesopotamia) to cull the population of the low IQ fools (via the war, eugenics, genocide, rationing, and totalitarian megadeath that results from peaking socialism when it runs out of other people's resources to steal, ahem redistribute) so the human race can get smarter and advance knowledge. So sorry for you, you haven’t been able to grasp how to survive.

Cross-posting from other thread...


The point you are missing is that in a free market, you don’t need to trust your ISP as competition will provide you with options.

What you don’t believe or fail to understand is that regulatory capture of your government is precisely what stifles competition. This is what the quote from Eric S. Raymond about “asymmetric power” means.

So yes the monopolistic telcos are on their knees praying that you will trust the government more than the free market, because the more power you give to the government to regulate, the stronger their monopolies will become.

This has been proven over and over to always be the outcome in all of recorded human history. The mathematical reason was explained by Mancur Olson’s book, The Logic of Collective Action.

I don’t expect you to be able to wrap your mind around this, because the reason socialists are socialists is because they don’t have the IQ to reason rationally at this high level.

And evolution is at work (over and over throughout recorded human history since Mesopotamia) to cull the population of the low IQ fools (via the war, eugenics, genocide, rationing, and totalitarian megadeath that results from peaking socialism when it runs out of other people's resources to steal, ahem redistribute) so the human race can get smarter and advance knowledge. So sorry for you, you haven’t been able to grasp how to survive.

Cross-posting from other thread...


The point you are missing is that in a free market, you don’t need to trust your ISP as competition will provide you with options.

What you don’t believe or fail to understand is that regulatory capture of your government is precisely what stifles competition. This is what the quote from Eric S. Raymond about “asymmetric power” means.

So yes the monopolistic telcos are on their knees praying that you will trust the government more than the free market, because the more power you give to the government to regulate, the stronger their monopolies will become.

This has been proven over and over to always be the outcome in all of recorded human history. The mathematical reason was explained by Mancur Olson’s book, The Logic of Collective Action.

I don’t expect you to be able to wrap your mind around this, because the reason socialists are socialists is because they don’t have the IQ to reason rationally at this high level.

And evolution is at work (over and over throughout recorded human history since Mesopotamia) to cull the population of the low IQ fools (via the war, eugenics, genocide, rationing, and totalitarian megadeath that results from peaking socialism when it runs out of other people's resources to steal, ahem redistribute) so the human race can get smarter and advance knowledge. So sorry for you, you haven’t been able to grasp how to survive.

Yup, username18444 is Communist pig and following him will result in abject failure.

The point you are missing is that in a free market, you don’t need to trust your ISP as competition will provide you with options.

What you don’t believe or fail to understand is that regulatory capture of your government is precisely what stifles competition. This is what the quote from Eric S. Raymond about “asymmetric power” means.

So yes the monopolistic telcos are on their knees praying that you will trust the government more than the free market, because the more power you give to the government to regulate, the stronger their monopolies will become.

This has been proven over and over to always be the outcome in all of recorded human history. The mathematical reason was explained by Mancur Olson’s book, The Logic of Collective Action.

I don’t expect you to be able to wrap your mind around this, because the reason socialists are socialists is because they don’t have the IQ to reason rationally at this high level.

And evolution is at work (over and over throughout recorded human history since Mesopotamia) to cull the population of the low IQ fools (via the war, eugenics, genocide, rationing, and totalitarian megadeath that results from peaking socialism when it runs out of other people's resources to steal, ahem redistribute) so the human race can get smarter and advance knowledge. So sorry for you, you haven’t been able to grasp how to survive.

---

Eric S Raymond worked hard to move to the term “open source” instead of Richard Stallman’s “free software”, because the latter is communism which is an abject failure.

The key difference between that Stallman and the FSF advocate the oxymoronic use of coercion (force) to maintain freedom (specifically the FSF GPL standard license forces some actions and limits other actions), thus it exhibits the loss of liberty that is the hallmark of Communism.

You can listen to Eric S. Raymond on this topic at the following video of a Java Users Group presentation where “viral contamination” means coercion in the GPL license:

http://jobtipsforgeeks.com/2012/05/17/lessons-from-a-jug-talk-with-eric-esr-raymond/


Jump to the 9:15 min point in the video.