US - PUBLIC SYSTEM

[other.arkitech]

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Friday, December 6, 2019 10:13 PM, coderman <coderman at protonmail.com> wrote:

> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Friday, December 6, 2019 8:01 PM, other.arkitech other.arkitech at protonmail.com wrote:
> ...
>
> > The typical reaction to this is nah, you choose tax or anonymity, not both. Well, that's it, it can be done.
>
> 1.)
> they all missed the first question: what's your threat model?
>
Not sure how to answer this related to the question "tax+anonymity"
Would you rephrase the question please?



> "anonymity" has been used to describe a transparent web proxy and a datagram overlay protocol, and everything in between.
>
I'd describe anonymity as private identity.
For the moment I consider that exposing ip address of nodes is reasonably good approximation to anonymity.

> 2.)
> "It is straight forward to move on from secp256k1 to other"
>
> this is actually not trivial! downgrade attacks are a real threat vector, seamless key migration technically challenging, deprecating legacy cipher suites in decentralized systems a significant challenge...

Unlike bitcoin, this system does not store any data related to cryptography like signatures. The system can evolve with the time, since cryptographic functions are only used for validation, and then transactions are destroyed, not stored like bitcoin does.
An hypothetical upgrade from secp256k1 to ?? would happen instantly and the old library would not be used for anything like e.g. in bitcoin to validate all blocks since 10 years ago.


>
> 3.)
> " The system is locked to work over IPv4 exclusively for one reason. Scarcity. IPv4 i used to control the number of nodes behind an address and thus control sibyl attack. This is the only anonymity-issue I have AFAIK and dont really know how solve with IPv6 or onion."
>
> thoughts:
>
> -   exposing IPv4 betrays anonymity (without additional protections)

A temporary tradeoff, IP4 are needed here as part of a sybil attack protection.

> -   IPv4 addresses are a very poor sybil defense.

The ability to allow a maximum of say 6 nodes per IP4 gives, according to my perception, a good defense thanks to the scarcity and price of IP4, which is stronger as the network size grows.

> -   IPv6 ORCHID addresses (non-routable virtual addrs) via Tor overlay would be a significant improvement! E.g. https://www.onioncat.org/

I'll double or triple check that these technologies guarantee the scarcity of addresses, i.e. The property of IP4 I am exploiting is:
the number of nodes behind an address can be known and used to deny participation of further nodes behing the same address.


> -   "This is the only anonymity issue" is not reassuring when this issue is a fatal flaw!

In paranoid anonymity purism it can be considered severe. I agree. And I work my brains to see how can I hide it without opening the possibility of a sybil attack.

In real world we have Bitcoin with majority of nodes in clear IP address, we have visa cards and people taking risks just because everybody does, kind of you get obfuscated among the rest.

My way forward is to discover how to hide IP4 addresses without losing the capability of knowing when 2 nodes are behind the same IP4 address is welcome. Any help is welcome.

>
>     Also, "Q: anonymous taxation? lolwut" - hah

It looks like this pair of words cause sensation : )

>
>     ref: http://otheravu4v6pitvw.onion/downloads/misc/answers_to_questions.txt
>
>     best regards,
>

Thanks for your views.
Other Arkitech