91–100 of 101 posts
This is crazy to me. Discord is letting literal criminals use it's corporate services in full view to commit crimes?
This article (with high slop vibes) and another article on their site (linked in the comments) seem to suggest that post quantum encryption mitigated the Sybil attack, without explanation. I fail to understand how the two are even related.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While anyone can run a Tor node and register it as available, the tags that Tor relays get assigned and the list of relays is controlled by 9 consensus servers[1] that are run by different members the Tor project (in different countries). They can thus easily block nodes. [1]: https://consensus-health.torproject.org/
It's 10, not 9. And there are severe problems with having a total of 10 DA be the essential source of truth for whole network. It would be trivial to DDoS the DAs and bring down the Tor network or at the very least, disrupt it: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.10755 . It's the only complaint I have of the current state of Tor. Anyone should be able to run directory authority, regardless if you trust the operator or not (sa…
A: Run your own network that trusts the existing plus whatever nodes you think ought to be and convince everyone that this is better if it is
B: Run a node and convince others to trust yours so that eventually there is 11 then 12 and so forth?
Thus, something like this in Go should be the norm. The GC it's ideal for this, it comes with batteries charged for networking and it can be for sure be made compatible with stuff like NNCP like nothing.
It wouldn't run many times slower than i2pd in C++, it should be perfectly bearable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This answer is missing the key "regularity" part of their questions, which I would love to know more about.
That’s a great question… Currently we’re in the main Chinese holiday period with the Lunar New Year/Spring Festival/Chinese New Year, so perhaps people traveling back home from foreign lands might use the service more during this time?
From the main article, I2P has 55,000 computers, the botnet tried to add 700,000 infected routers to I2P to use it as a backup command-and-control system. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46976825 This, predictably, broke I2P.
I guess "predictably" is valid but what actually went wrong? After going through multiple sources I can't tell if the botnet nodes were breaking the protocol on purpose, breaking the protocol on accident, or correct implementations that nevertheless overwhelmed something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> so that they can take action like cutting out malicious nodes if needed How does that work?
While anyone can run a Tor node and register it as available, the tags that Tor relays get assigned and the list of relays is controlled by 9 consensus servers[1] that are run by different members the Tor project (in different countries). They can thus easily block nodes. [1]: https://consensus-health.torproject.org/
This article (with high slop vibes) and another article on their site (linked in the comments) seem to suggest that post quantum encryption mitigated the Sybil attack, without explanation. I fail to understand how the two are even related.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So? At least the reporting used to be mostly accurate and trustworthy. Here we can see that Krebs is now willing to publish stories he hasn’t even attempted to verify
[flagged]