Namecoin into i2p integration [WORKS!]

[paraipan]

Very nice! I was thinking about the same project for Tor. Unfortunately I'm too busy so I hope somebody else will do the job for me :-)).

And unlike I2P, Tor is just a proxy service, primary made for HTTP proxying.

This is incorrect, Tor is acting as a SOCKS5 proxy and is relaying any TCP traffic, not only HTTP.

if this is implemented for tor/i2p it would be the next best thing after bitcoin show'ed up

[1714931071]

1714931071

[1714931071]

1714931071

[1714931071]

1714931071

[1714931071]

1714931071

[1714931071]

1714931071

[pent]

if this is implemented for tor/i2p it would be the next best thing after bitcoin show'ed up

It will be a really new Internet Dimension.

[paraipan]

if this is implemented for tor/i2p it would be the next best thing after bitcoin show'ed up

It will be a really new Internet Dimension.

meh, more like an exact copy of the one a few ppl try to ruin these days

[pent]

Very nice! I was thinking about the same project for Tor. Unfortunately I'm too busy so I hope somebody else will do the job for me :-)).

And unlike I2P, Tor is just a proxy service, primary made for HTTP proxying.

This is incorrect, Tor is acting as a SOCKS5 proxy and is relaying any TCP traffic, not only HTTP.

1.2
Differences to TOR
The main characteristic in which I2P differs from TOR is the focus of the project.
While TOR was designed with the intention to enable anonymous internet brows-
ing, I2P’s focus is to provide an anonymous network, isolated inside the internet,
offering various protocols and applications within. It is however possible to utilize
I2P outproxies to reach the internet and thus enable anonymous web browsing.
Due to the focus of the project, there was only one public outproxy in place at
the time of this writing (false.i2p). Another difference to the TOR network
is, that I2P tunnels can only be used unidirectional compared to TOR’s bidi-
rectional tunnels. Also, as mentioned in Section 1.1 I2P uses garlic encryption
where TOR uses onion encryption. Both implementations are based on layered
encryption, garlic encryption offering the possibility to store multiple messages
inside the innermost layer [3].

http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~semu/docs/2011_seminar_ehlert_i2p.pdf

[slush]

pent, you didn't say anything in the direct oposite of my post :-).

We can discuss what is main purpose of Internet/Tor/I2P, but the fact is that Tor is TCP mixing network (not HTTP-only mixing network).

[pent]

pent, you didn't say anything in the direct oposite of my post :-).

We can discuss what is main purpose of Internet/Tor/I2P, but the fact is that Tor is TCP mixing network (not HTTP-only mixing network).

look, I know the Tor can almost all what i2p can. but the differ is in project purposes, in what they were designed for.

[pent]

How to check out?

Configure your proxy to 94.75.233.174 port 4444. Thats all.

Proxy does not support regular ICANN domains and IP. .i2p and .bit (configured for i2p) only!!! 150 Kb/sec total traffic shaper enabled.


My own site supporting this project:

http://i2psupport.bit/

Site from screenshot (not mine, just domain is my own):

http://www.pent.bit/

Other .i2p also should work... sometime   http://forum.i2p/

domain i2psupport.bit is resolved to (absolutely no any IP-address):

Code:

[root@server ~]$ ./namecoind name_scan d/i2psupport 1
[
    {
        "name" : "d/i2psupport",
        "value" : "{\"i2p\": { \"destination\": \"SN8pNsF~NHZek2NRUootxO465FnrcpZcdcRzQXGvjmwXER7HQKw5j~S4mEZuFEFMWTDXI3MTACJfN9y87sLBPHnJA0CEXjYKf2hM4YNJ2fLUXCZi0uLDaW-rUz4vEpUJF1-rcE~D4tiFO-2MKVNJLoGKvO87808XL0ejtdNCE-apxOWsGNBmxDdOM6dPx~F6tzmA-m8EeAzXvE-ZD8Q5yQX2dIiDXTFRTgfKQG0acyuNwBOWxRb2MvyoyxiKQFhcn2V~jR0Ub4~1eHNMq-308j1d1nZNPEPxnQPcMYY22lU427GASGYMOpngFH-Z8l1cKpiBAYCvDR1kvUASctLfBIE9U3IWRsYhQHhMPi5ZPuWNkM5U5oH4DXPctDmDsiIAtB-l4vUWTTkxmwU0~65URyb4EDFEVzcfmZuD0xMCq8Me9q1OgkhfIjdoCC-35D8cKPygCMdfZh4ZOHg932NmNLT5fTaKIiri~MSl4GwQPdC27iV7DRDZJV0YrjhIYJccAAAA\" } }",
        "txid" : "9f4903a2061d78398842619e49aacfca0e2021d3e2fd2ebc8d06f9effb311b27",
        "address" : "MxR1e7obQ5KcuaofuzXbceL3Aj1wfWME7v",
        "expires_in" : 35983
    }
]

[pent]

Sources are available on github (with all instructions)

https://github.com/pentarh/NameCoin-I2P-Resolver

Launched IP4-mirror of i2psupport.bit:

http://i2psupport.org/

I2P Binaries comming soon with site update.

[pent]

Website updated http://i2psupport.org/

[paraipan]

Website updated http://i2psupport.org/

lool 

[marcus_of_augustus]

I2P has ugly and not authoritative DNS system, but has very strong anonymous crypted network.
Tor has authoritative .onion domains, but they are looks not user-friendly.

NameCoin Has authoritative anonymous domain system, but has no anonymous network implementations.

They all made for each other.

You got it. Gonna follow this.

[Herodes]

Website updated http://i2psupport.org/

lool 

+1

[pent]

Everyone that loves this should really consider donating to the Namecoin project.  Looking at their block history they have received a pitifully low amount of support from the community, lets see if we can pony up some love for these guys

http://dot-bit.org/Dot-BIT_Namecoin_Project:Site_support

I agree, NameCoin needs a community support. It is in very poor state now.


I posted an initial proposal to I2P developers: http://zzz.i2p/topics/1091 (I2P link!)

Also this is discussed here: http://forum.i2p2.de/viewtopic.php?t=5767

[pent]

I promised in this thread a reward of 100 BTC if lightweight namecoin Java client will be integrated into i2p router with ability to surf .bit eepsites.

If you want to help, this is donation page http://i2psupport.org/supportus.html

[ThiagoCMC]

I love this!! Following! +1000

[pent]

While inspecting namecoin code i found it destroys coins for name registration. This is made for figthing with squaters. But actually it is namecoin suicid.

I wrote a public appeal to khal:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62017.0
http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2548#p2548

Please vote for removal of this algo from namecoin if you care.

[torusJKL]

This sounds very interesting.
It could make i2p much more end user friendly.
Will certainly follow the process.

[pent]

Falling into namecoin internals I found it not suitable for use in a current design.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62017.0

I'll look around what can we do with that.

[slush]

Falling into namecoin internals I found it not suitable for use in a current design.

I think you're so much skeptical about namecoin. It works pretty well *now*. Namecoin is still very young project and there may be some development fixing those issues. There's only few namecoin users right now, so namecoin update can work like bitcoin updates year or two ago; satoshi simply posted new bitcoin version and everybody updated without any boring discussion like BIP16/17 :-D.

I see bigger threat in lacking namecoin development than in missing features in current implementation.

[pent]

==cut==