Lightweight Anonymous Distributed Shitposting - Distributed forum possiblities sperg zone

[Dante Alighieri]

It's morally objectionable to support a network that most likely is used to spread CP

The internet in general is used to spread CP, shut it down!

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

Speaking of such things, I found this article from about 5 years ago.

r/privacy - Anonymity compromise in Freenet by U.S. law enforcement

39 votes and 11 comments so far on Reddit

www.reddit.com

Seems like the network glows rather brightly, but at the time this was written, the focus of enforcement action was on the ultimate requesters of CP.

I remember this at the time. I'm skeptical as to whether they actually have a way to tell for sure who's requesting child porn rather than passing on requests for other people for child porn. I assume they instead did something along the lines of running a few nodes, and identifying IPs where 90% of requests are for known child porn files, as opposed to only 10% or so. At that point you can probably get away with going to a judge to get a warrant, and assuming the pedo doesn't have their drive encrypted or is in midspank when you hit the door (pedos are stupid, so it likely works out) they're done.

I'm not saying that FreeNet is necessarily a dangerous thing to use now, but if it starts getting used more widely for politically incorrect speech, it may well become more of a target by law enforcement agencies that care a lot more about that stuff than they do child porn. And if they do want to do that, the fact that it inherently spreads child porn is something that could be quite dangerous to users being targeted by LEO.

Hashes aren't going to find diddly in an encrypted store on a random drive on a random node in a big network. Not that I'm a fan of hosting some pedo's wank pics, but I can't think of a way to filter content in a double-blind setup like this, and running a node wouldn't make me fear the feds kicking my door down some night. If someone's actively hosting a kiddie-diddling site on the network, yeah, I could absolutely see several legal organizations going to the trouble of tracking them down, but a person just running an open node where the data's all encrypted and they don't have a key to view it seems pretty safe to me.

Bro, the thing with FreeNet is that practically _everyone_ is actively hosting kiddie diddling content. This isn't like Tor, where if you run a relay (including an internal one) you might be providing a path for traffic to someone's darknet CP website to be transmitted, or IPFS, where if you actively request content from someone else's IPFS files, that will be stored in the cache until it works its way out. Requests for CP made by people you happened to connect to from a public nodelist will be stored on your computer indefinitely.

Is it a big deal at the moment? No. LEOs don't really care about CP and pedos are stupid so they have much easier pickings than FreeNet users. But if it starts being used for discussing stuff that's shut down on the regular internet, that will change.

The internet in general is used to spread CP, shut it down!

I'm not even making an argument based on morality here. While CP purveyors should be shut down and hung in the street, my point here is not to make a moral judgement, but instead to convey a warning. If you run FreeNet for a few weeks, with say, a 10-20gb cache, there is enough CP on your computer for you to become one of those nasty-sounding stories in a local newspaper "Local man John Smith, 26, was arrested and has been charged with possession of 669 images of child pornography, of which 99 were of the most depraved nature."

I'm not saying it will happen soon. But if FreeNet becomes a commonly used venue for politically incorrect speech, it absolutely will happen. The only way it could be worse is if you're in England, where the Anarchist Cookbook type stuff that makes up the remainder of content on FreeNet that isn't CP or the developer's blogs is illegal too.

 

[TurdFondler]

The internet in general is used to spread CP, shut it down!

That's a garbage argument and you know it. I'm not actively aiding the distribution of CP by being online and using a browser, which cannot be said of FreeNet.

If FreeNet wasn't actually full of CP and the argument was purely theoretical it's a different story. But if there's a non zero chance my pc will be used to spread CP then I'm out. It's not worth it

 

[Dante Alighieri]

I'm not even making an argument based on morality here. While CP purveyors should be shut down and hung in the street, my point here is not to make a moral judgement, but instead to convey a warning. If you run FreeNet for a few weeks, with say, a 10-20gb cache, there is enough CP on your computer for you to become one of those nasty-sounding stories in a local newspaper "Local man John Smith, 26, was arrested and has been charged with possession of 669 images of child pornography, of which 99 were of the most depraved nature."

Oh I know, and a FreeNet solution doesn't seem optimal just for that kind of risk. I was more poking fun at his statement and how he said it.

 

[JSC]

Tor relays aren't 'hosting' anything. They simply relay traffic. FreeNet nodes retain and further distribute material that not just yourself, but others connected to you, request.

If Freenet would be illegal, Tor would be too. Nobody has ever tried to fuck with Tor, even though it has lots of CP, is used by lots of far-right sites, and is probably the ultimate guarantor of them staying online.

If you're running a Tor relay, you can fairly say that you're just relaying traffic. If you're running a FreeNet node, you're retaining and distributing a bunch of CP. You just can't say for sure whether it's babyfuck1.jpg or babyfuck2.jpg without a list of hashes of CP (which I'm sure law enforcement would build up if FreeNet ever really took off).

It's morally objectionable to support a network that most likely is used to spread CP

Oh I know, and a FreeNet solution doesn't seem optimal just for that kind of risk. I was more poking fun at his statement and how he said it.

Proof? I hear people making this claim all the time, but I've never seen any evidence for it. If you go on FMS, the top boards (excluding cross-posters) are:

freenet
tv-episodes
test
news
fms
jp.kcbk
sites
movies
politics
public

Where is the CP? You can go on FMS and see for yourself. It's mostly Freenet, technology, and political talk.

Is there even any evidence that a significant portion of files on Freenet would be CP? I mean, how are you going to arrive at that figure, when everything is encrypted?

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

Is there even any evidence that a significant portion of files on Freenet would be CP? I mean, how are you going to arrive at that figure, when everything is encrypted?

Everything is 'encypted' in that FreeNet doesn't directly download babyfuck3.jpg to your computer in the clear and name it that.

BUT it still downloads babyfuck3.jpg to your computer, and if Freenet becomes a platform that people actually use, pigs will use the fact that babyfuck3.jpg exists on your computer to prove that you possess and are distributing child pornography.

If Freenet would be illegal, Tor would be too. Nobody has ever tried to fuck with Tor, even though it has lots of CP, is used by lots of far-right sites, and is probably the ultimate guarantor of them staying online.

We've explained repeatedly that this is a completely different model. Tor doesn't store child porn on your computer. FreeNet does.

 

[TurdFondler]

Do you ACTUALLY think they'd have it out in the open? You're not going to log onto a public net and see it being advertised.

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

Do you ACTUALLY think they'd have it out in the open? You're not going to log onto a public net and see it being advertised.

Honestly, it's not far off that. If you fired up FreeNet a decade ago and clicked around until you got to an index, the index would have libertarian blogs, it'd have dubiously sourced bombmaking instructions... and it'd have links to 'child modelling' galleries.

Maybe that's changed, but this stuff isn't very far under the surface in FreeNet, and it's all downloaded onto your computer in proportion to its popularity. No thank you!

 

[Kosher Dill]

How about some more blockchain retardistry?

I was looking into some of the "enterprise blockchain" solutions out there, such as Enterprise Ethereum, Corda, and Hyperledger Fabric.

The general idea behind all of these is that you run a private blockchain which is based on something other than proof-of-work (mining). And they're big on using trusted execution environments such as Intel SGX to run verified (signed) code off-chain - although this technology isn't quite infallible.

The tricky thing about these private blockchains is that they typically replace mining with a voting system. A block gets added when it receives a certain number of votes from whoever you configure as "qualified to vote".
The problem, of course, is that this system is designed for corporate networks or internetworks where you assume everyone has some vested interest in keeping the network functional, and all nodes will be up at all times. The equivalent of a 51% attack in this system is for the attacker to control enough voting nodes to rewrite the blockchain any way they want.
So the question is: how would you set up voting so that it's hard for an attacker to subvert 51% of the votes, but still easy enough for blocks to get added? As I write this, about 1.7% of all accounts ever to exist are logged in right now.

 

[TurdFondler]

Blockchain is a solution in search of a problem.

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

How about some more blockchain retardistry?

I was looking into some of the "enterprise blockchain" solutions out there, such as Enterprise Ethereum, Corda, and Hyperledger Fabric.

The general idea behind all of these is that you run a private blockchain which is based on something other than proof-of-work (mining). And they're big on using trusted execution environments such as Intel SGX to run verified (signed) code off-chain - although this technology isn't quite infallible.

The tricky thing about these private blockchains is that they typically replace mining with a voting system. A block gets added when it receives a certain number of votes from whoever you configure as "qualified to vote".
The problem, of course, is that this system is designed for corporate networks or internetworks where you assume everyone has some vested interest in keeping the network functional, and all nodes will be up at all times. The equivalent of a 51% attack in this system is for the attacker to control enough voting nodes to rewrite the blockchain any way they want.
So the question is: how would you set up voting so that it's hard for an attacker to subvert 51% of the votes, but still easy enough for blocks to get added? As I write this, about 1.7% of all accounts ever to exist are logged in right now.

I'm not sure that these sorts of concepts are that applicable to a situation like the one we're discussing.

They do make sense, I think, for internal accounting type systems, as a way to make really really really sure that your internal accounting people really do have to follow good practices and not just ask the IT guys to pretty please remove their messed up transactions after they don't fully check their input data before putting it through.

Instead, they have to reject and push new transactions, and that's just fine. Next time, Karen, please conduct a self audit on the rates you were punching before heading off for the weekend.

That good solution is actually a problem for our purposes. If there is consensus on the inclusion of a block, it's there forever. There could be a special message added later on to say 'don't actually show the child porn included in this earlier block' but as long as the earlier block still has to be included forever, that's a problem.

 

[Kosher Dill]

I'm not sure that these sorts of concepts are that applicable to a situation like the one we're discussing.

I'm not sure either, but I do think there are some ideas worth playing with when it comes to distributed consensus. I haven't seen much else yet that strikes a middle ground between the complete anarchy approach, and a traditional fully centralized server with a database.

If there is consensus on the inclusion of a block, it's there forever.

Is that true in a non-proof-of-work blockchain? You can rewrite a blockchain, it's just near-impossible on the public mining-based ones due to the amount of computing power it would take.

EDIT: also, turning forking into a regular admin operation would probably require some careful thought. What happens if there are multiple fork requests out at once? What happens if there are pending posts on the old fork? Perhaps this idea is still half-baked.

 

[JSC]

Everything is 'encypted' in that FreeNet doesn't directly download babyfuck3.jpg to your computer in the clear and name it that.

BUT it still downloads babyfuck3.jpg to your computer, and if Freenet becomes a platform that people actually use, pigs will use the fact that babyfuck3.jpg exists on your computer to prove that you possess and are distributing child pornography.

Where is the proof? You're just claiming, baselessly, that this network is full of CP.

If so, why not just arrest me for having a copy of the Bitcoin blockchain? Why haven't they done anyone in for it yet?

We've explained repeatedly that this is a completely different model. Tor doesn't store child porn on your computer. FreeNet does.

Well, you're talking about distributing child porn too, no? If encrypted child porn you don't know about and don't want is child porn - and it isn't - all the Tor people would be behind bars. They aren't, because it isn't.

Do you ACTUALLY think they'd have it out in the open? You're not going to log onto a public net and see it being advertised.

So where's the evidence then? You're claiming it's absolutely riddled with invisible child pornography nobody can see?

How about some more blockchain retardistry?

I was looking into some of the "enterprise blockchain" solutions out there, such as Enterprise Ethereum, Corda, and Hyperledger Fabric.

Enterprise blockchain is a scam, sorry. If there's people you trust, just use a distributed database. Enterprise blockchain is a buzzword.

I'm not sure either, but I do think there are some ideas worth playing with when it comes to distributed consensus. I haven't seen much else yet that strikes a middle ground between the complete anarchy approach, and a traditional fully centralized server with a database.

Well, if you really don't like Freenet, just redo FMS with another backend like IPFS. All the other parts are ironed out and battle-tested already.

Is that true in a non-proof-of-work blockchain? You can rewrite a blockchain, it's just near-impossible on the public mining-based ones due to the amount of computing power it would take.

Everyone would have to redownload the blockchain since the fork point.

---

If anyone is interested in trying FMS, here's how to install it:


1. Download and install Freenet from <https://freenetproject.org/pages/download.html>. A data store of 1GB is more than enough for simple browsing
2. Download jfms from <http://127.0.0.1:8888/USK@vytzawkXs...t18IUapGdENTtqEuSfss5l64Mdoc,AQACAAE/jfms/-8/> (Note: Freenet needs to be installed for this link to work)
3. Run jfms
4. Go to Options > Manage local identities > Add, fill in your desired username under Name, leave the rest as default
5. Go to Options > Manage local identities, select your user, click "Announce"
6. Fill out a dozen captchas or so (they will take a while to load)
7. Go to Boards > Subscribe board, enter "lolcow"
8. Go to "lolcow" under boards and say hi! (Posts will take a few hours to show up for new users)

 

[SSS8555]

tor hiddens service with gopher server inside

 

[stares at error messages]

Could block chains be used to defend against ddos attacks? For example if a server has a lot of traffic from young (time in the block chain) public keys, those keys can be identified. The high volume young key requests could be denied so the server doesn't have to be taxed by malicious traffic.

 

[bd3rZIKr]

No freenet node has image.jpg instead many nodes have small chunks of it. To have image.jpg you have to explicitly request it. This makes it fetch and piece together image.jpg because you asked for it. It's kinda like mega. You insert a file and get a link. Without this link it's just garbage.

Anyway freenet is not fit for kf. The cdn feature is interesting: the more a file is requested the "faster" it is fethed but uploads take days so don't even bother. Bumping to tell you to not use it. It's experimental and your ip is public info btw.