New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
No problem at all; I consider links to estonian sites as utterly insignificant and wouldn't have looked at them anyway.
DW is a state outlet that is known for spreading anti-Russia (and in extension anti-Belarussia) propaganda and bloomberg isn't neutral either plus behind a wall.
But the really funny thing is that the DW "article" you linked to does not mention Tachyon at all. But then your point wasn't about Tachyon and this thread's topic anyway but merely to "show me wrong" - which to try was nonsensical anyway because I did not deny that the belarussian government/authorities shut down parts of the internet or some sites and/or servers.
Thanks for amusing me.
Are you actually fucking stupid? The "parts/some sites" included over 130 MILLION sites. It's not like FB and Twitter alone were blocked. And no, I dont give a rats ass what you think or what you were reading in some Russian outlet, this is a fact, unless you can prove it otherwise, shut the hell up. This is the third time I need to repute your silly ass about the regional differences while you have no fucking clue whats going on in the region here.
@jbiloh for the the love of god, get a block function working so I dont need to see this idiot ever again.
(a) evidence?
(b) I'll now end this non-discussion with you because this thread's topic isn't "serv_ee's private war against anything russian and against jsg, the evil Russia-defender". The topic was and is Tachyon.
Nah, you're the one who needs to prove Bloomberg is wrong not the other way around. You are calling them biased so prove them wrong.
As for my "private war" - nah, you're just spewing so much shit and false information out of your mouth its astounding. Every media that doesnt end in .ru is "biased" now that I linked local its "insignificant" so whats next? Go read sputnik and don't ever quote me again.
You didn't even get the very basics, did you. If bloomberg - or Sputnik for that matter - asserts something then they must provide evidence. Not me, not you, but they.
FYI: I did not say that Lukashenko is a nice guy. I did not say that they didn't shut down some sites or servers. I did not say that they didn't send the police against the protesters.
What I said, or more precisely what I asked, is that, IF they - as alleged - did shut down the whole internet (in their country) how did the protesters use internet apps on a shut down internet? Did they all dial in to e.g. estionian providers? And if so, how?
Simple questions - but instead of answering them you attack me, even ad hominem. In other words: if you want to be taken seriously don't disqualify yourself.
You asked only a single question, which I answered.
It's fair to say you don't know what my job is. I think wired magazine did a great job covering demand for our product in Belarus due to censorship sparked by electoral conflict.
All of the encryption, yes.
What you mean like TLA+ and coq?
No to tla+ and coq.
Tachyon was verified to be highly effective by people in Belarus and other countries with internet censorship.
Go
Tachyon puts a full TCP/ip connection in an HTTP/S connection and it gets past DPI. It's really that "gets past DPI" part that users love.
Node operators earn more rewards when they serve more bandwidth to end users.
Users get a VPN product that cuts through most censorship and surveillance systems like a hot knife through butter.
@jacobipx can you explain me the safety of this? for example Tor can run middle with zero-risk to the runner. in this case every person getting node operator reward will be at risk as an exit?
I don't care about the blockchain stuff, but if I can run a no-exit-traffic equivalent to a tor middle and get BTC rewards for it I would pretty much immediate contribute multiple gbps of bw
First, kudos that you at least started to be a bit more concrete.
I already told you
.
Here it's your job. You opened this thread, you introduced your product and so it's your job.
Can we see those specs and the modelling verification results??
Again BS. Blockchain, crypto and other sensitive stuff is either formally verified or it isn't at all.
I had a hunch it was Go ... frankly, a sh_tty choice (and not properly verifiable at all), but thanks for finally providing some concrete info. I mean it, thanks.
Frankly, a weak assumption wrt security but I guess in the eyes of most people it's an acceptable and possibly even attractive mechanism.
Pardon me but you're back again at marketing BS. It would have been more useful to explain why using Tachyon is better/safer/more secure than using say Tor or Telegram.
@jacobipx How do you and your partners deal with the abuse issue raised by Nyr?
love you
I guess I missed that one in the length of this thread. So let me tell you about that:
Basically what it boils down to is what more or less every VPN provider does.
When abuse incidents occur, usually it is the Hosting Proviser that contacts the node operator.
We provide a couple of standard template responses for things like DMCA violations. In more extreme cases you know sometimes there have been cases where remote machines have been port scanned.
So what we are doing as the provider of this software is basically facilitating the standard responses used when when abuse incidents occur.
It is correct to say that things vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and that node operators do take risk.
Running a public VPN is not a risk-free endeavor and we do not claim to be a risk-free endeavor for node operators.
At the same time, we do provide a few things to lower the risk of operation for node operators including those standard response templates, guidelines and support.
It seems that in most places, and at most hosting providers but certainly not all, it is good enough to explain what is going on. They are obligated to tell you about it and you are obligated to explain it but because it is your user taking the action, you are not liable.
There are definitely exceptions to this, I believe that there are places in the world where running a VPN could put you at very significant legal risk up to and including jail time or physical punishment.
Of course, we counsel operators not to place nodes in those areas as that would be grossly irresponsible.
If we zoom out the timeline a bit, say two or three years, and we assume that both tachyon and other decentralized VPN approaches, for example sentinel, continue to experience strong growth, that the presence of decentralized VPNs on servers potentially as a secondary monetization source for web or blockchain infrastructure, may become the norm.
We also feel that if this becomes the norm, the risk of operating these notes will diminish significantly.
So that is the story there on the legal risk of running tachyon nodes.
Thanks so much for asking and have a great day!
also I should mention that we don't currently have any formal partnerships with hosting providers. We simply use their publicly available APIs and and that's going pretty well.
So if you are a hosting provider reading this do this with a partnership and outline something and make a plan potentially cross marketing, or you could just let us know how to use your API and we could build software against it and our node operators would be able to use your services at scale.
Probably the biggest advantage to you of this arrangement is the study and sustained nature of these subscriptions. You will get revenue.
And as mentioned here, probably the biggest disadvantage is the risk.
Yeah I think that the risk profile comparison of a Tor exit node is appropriate.
One of the documents that we refer operators to is actually the legal document from Tor for exit node operators.
At present, tachyon connections are one to one, but there will soon be a need for relays. 6 months maybe?
Thank you for letting me know that, now I know that there is desire on the operator side to run these relays and I assume that your you are fairly deeply experienced.
our magic is actually a payment channel system on the V systems blockchain. Payment channels on VSYS allow for extremely rapid transmission of funds (no on chain tx, no secondary network like ln) And for those funds to be claimed in batches by their recipients. This way, bandwidth can be paid for in real time.
Okay I suppose technically it is not pure real time, technically users pay for 5 MB sessions. There is no block chain delay whatsoever when making these payments because the transaction is not actually written to chain until the node operator submits a claim transaction to claim funds from the payment channel in question.
Finally regarding flavor of cryptocurrency, pretty unlikely that you will ever get paid BTC directly, but you can always earn IPX and sell that for BTC anywhere that you would like to do so.
Sir,
all I'm really going to say this time is that we do not roll our own crypto, so all of our cryptographic primitives are well verified because we use high quality standard open source cryptographic primitives everywhere in the product.
I never said that Tachyon was safer than Tor.
but I will gladly tell you that we have a different risk profile.
In our current one-to-one implementation, users do trust the VPN node that they connect to. That node could spy on you, in the same manner that a Tor exit node could spy on you. Users can and should shop around, and there is a marketplace for doing so.
Furthermore, we do not currently have a system of relays although that is coming.
The biggest security difference is probably that compared to commercial VPN providers, we do not know who you are as a user and I believe that offers users significant protection when compared to services that are in possession of user identities.
We have never taken even one penny of government funding at any time. Tor accepts a good deal of government funding to this day.
When we look at operator incentives, we also present a different risk profile.
Tor exit nodes are not incentivized. People seem to run them for altruistic reasons and of course that is awesome. Could this mean that many Tor exit nodes are actually run by adversarial groups?
I have always assumed that is the case but certainly do not know for sure.
People run tachyon nodes because they want to make money. We think that the financial incentive is going to improve the availability and overall robustness of our network when compared to Tor.
of course, bad actors could still run nodes on our network. We have an incentive system in place to ensure that taking over enough relayers to threaten the network is cost prohibitive. That is what we call Tachyon on staking.
Finally, we do not suffer from strange situations like this one:
https://github.com/Enegnei/JacobAppelbaumLeavesTor
I am more curious about the user experience.
Is there only one TLS encryption layer? Or there's another layer?
I know that the two-layer system can now be easily tracked by AI-based DPI as the second layer created 'the pattern'.
Also, the TOR is so slow that it can't be used in a certain case.
How do you describe the performance of this project? Do you think average end-user can enjoy Gbps or whatever their max speed on it?
Third, does the end-user get to chose which node they are on? e.g. some people want regional content.
Are end-user paid by traffic or unlimited?
Thanks!
I don't understand why you're malding like a motherfucker, have you even read the whitepaper for starters? They're using standard crypto, the unique thing here is how they use it, their usage being "secure" is another question.
At first look, the use of blockchain seems like a gimmick just to be able to stuff the term blockchain in this project to attract investors, but in this case it actually makes sense since with the way they presented it, it's basically bandwidth credits you can earn/consume by being on the network to prevent operator bandwidth abuse.
This feels like what WireGuard/Tor 2.0 would have been, I really like the idea of multipathing and reimplementing the internet layer since this is basically Tor's Change Identity feature on steroids.
What I would like to know more about however, is the implementation under the Protocol Simulation Scheme section and why it's even necessary; I'm assuming the bad actor you're depicting here is something like the GFW, but then again if the user's traffic is E2E encrypted it would appear like random blobs sent over UDP (what is there to DPI?) and even if they do detect you doing something funny then the worst they can do is block your connection to the a single node which I assume wouldn't be a problem with the reimplemented internet layer (unless all nodes get blocked that is).
Although it is a big shame that there are currently no clients for Windows nor Linux.
What the f^ck happened here?
At a glance, I see walls and walls of text that describe random stuff like Tor and Russia.... I have no idea how this thread is still open.
TL;DR?
@FAT32
Fine, which?
I don't care and btw. neither do I care to defend Tor. What I want is simply clear cut and verifiable technical info. Simple reason: All the social yada yada may help to sell but safety and security are based on tech, experience, and verification. When, e.g. you talk about risk profile I want to see a proper model, telling me how Eve looks like, what surfaces you cover and how, etc.
Again, I'm not yet saying that Tachyon is sh_tty. I simply want to get facts and technical information. If I get them I can come to a (possibly positive) conclusion, if not I have to assume that it's sh_tty.
Seems high quality decentralized VPN is much more controversial than I thought!
And I thought it was quite controversial.
It's not controversial at all, it's the norm when some piece of software makes unaudited, unverified claims about security in a vertical where fucking it up will get people beheaded
Depends on the configuration. The key differentiator with this product is always going to be the protocol simulation aspects, the fact that our protocol is built to make traffic look like something else while still containing a full TCP/IP connection.
Everything gets wrapped in another protocol and so far we have been successful. Intermittent outages in China/Iran, we assume that isn't due to protocol detection but instead a lot of traffic aimed at single nodes and their gear goes "anamoly, abort!
Sometimes.
"Fast, faster than most equivalents, but not all and not in all situations"
How fast depends on the connection between you and the server. You won't run into a cpu limitation for example. Purely network bound performance.
Yes, 1600 choices around the world
Pay by traffic. Whole service is free right now (inflation subsidized). Soon users will be able to pay for high end bandwidth.
Audits will happen.
To verify claims just go to Belarus during an electoral dispute.
I'm not saying that this stuff is not needed, I think it's definitely needed. It's not going to happen tomorrow but it's going to happen soon.
I really do suggest that you try it, I think what you'll find is thatCPU and RAM usage are really quite low, but nowhere near as low as Wireguard
The onus is on the person making the claims to provide proof of them. I would love to look at your formal verification in future. I love the field
So based on what are you claiming to be safe and secure?
Yada, yada, bla, bla. Just go around the world ... and find a billion+ PC running PCs Windows ... all of which must be sure, right?
Then don't talk today or tomorrow but "soon".
Fact is that you used Go and that translates to "it is not formally verifiable". Maybe some libraries you are based on claim to be verified but even if they were (which I strongly doubt) that would tell very little about Tachyon's safety and security.
But then, for the sake of fairness I should mention that Tor. openvpn, and similar aren't properly verified neither AFAIK.
For fairness to tor, openvpn, and similar they aren't advertising "make money in one click" blockchain crap (ipxus.com)