Results 1 ... 250 found in asciilifeform for 'peer'
| →
mats: a sub in the area field testing electro-optical warfare techniques against peer adversary interfering with IR with sub-launched drones and buggy radars you could fly a balloon through
dulapbot: (pest) 2023-12-12 crtdaydreams[asciilifeform]: If you've read through the spec you would be correct in understanding that pest does not facilitate a secure key exchange, instead the mechanism of which is left up to individual peers.
mod6: !!peer mod6
crtdaydreams: !!peer crtdaydreams
crtdaydreams: !!peer crtdaydreams
crtdaydreams: !!peer crtdaydreams
dulapbot: Logged on 2023-01-18 18:27:54 unpx: !!peer unpx
unpx: !!peer unpx
dpb: !!peer danielpbarron
dulapbot: Logged on 2022-12-17 12:17:39 signpost: ^ works! anyone who wants to join pest can now dispense peering info from deedbot via this command after registering a key in the wot.
asciilifeform: wb Apocalyptic . post here if you've any difficulties setting up ( and do try the new deedbot auto-peer mechanism )
signpost: !!peer signpost
signpost: ^ works! anyone who wants to join pest can now dispense peering info from deedbot via this command after registering a key in the wot.
signpost: !!peer signpost
cgra willing to peer up in pest, if any of billymg, jonsykkel, thimbronion, mod6, unpx want. ditto for any other pest-regular not currently on this medium
asciilifeform: cgra: here's peering info for cgra to dulapbot.
asciilifeform: cgra: oughta work correctly, if you peer with at least 1 station that aint behind a nat
dulapbot: (pest) 2022-12-08 asciilifeform: unpx: peering info for asciilifeform
asciilifeform: lobbes: got it, added your peering. not seeing any packets tho.
unpx: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/asciilifeform/2022-12-07#1114280 <<< well, I need a stable peer then, I'm already doing the best I can to keep my stuff up and running, but this is not a torrent link where a randezvous static ip answer queries for peers (luckly). So I'll share again my key, hoping someone else will consider to send a peer request, somehow. https://unpx.net/d4/gpg.txt
unpx: I closed pest. I do not have time to look after it every time a peer link breaks.
lobbes: I've finally got a pestron running. Gonna spend a few days learning how to use it, peering with myself, etc. and then I'll be ready for peering with others
dulapbot: Logged on 2022-11-30 00:28:58 unpx: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/asciilifeform/2022-11-29#1114237 <<< I actually emailed my peers too, strange. If you want we can find an hour in common to sync this up
shinohai: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/asciilifeform/2022-11-30#1114242 << email received, did not unpeer but will dive in firther when back @ desk later.
dulapbot: Logged on 2022-11-29 15:37:16 asciilifeform: unpx: apologies, forgot that you had tried to peer, will look later today (assuming 1 of these was for asciilifeform)
unpx: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/asciilifeform/2022-11-29#1114237 <<< I actually emailed my peers too, strange. If you want we can find an hour in common to sync this up
asciilifeform: unpx: apologies, forgot that you had tried to peer, will look later today (assuming 1 of these was for asciilifeform)
dulapbot: Logged on 2022-11-25 03:12:21 unpx: To my peers, hoping they will read this message. http://paste.deedbot.org/?id=BX0- http://paste.deedbot.org/?id=ZDRx http://paste.deedbot.org/?id=QMkw
unpx: To my peers, hoping they will read this message. http://paste.deedbot.org/?id=BX0- http://paste.deedbot.org/?id=ZDRx http://paste.deedbot.org/?id=QMkw
dulapbot: (pest) 2022-11-20 crtdaydreams[busybot|asciilifeform]: http://logs.bitdash.io/asciilifeform/2022-11-20#1114222 << possibly to do with NAT config &&|| peers changed ip simultaniously.
unpx: IP changed, but I don't get why my peers didn't update it in their AT.
lobbes: knowing me it'll probably be a few days before I actually have a station up and running, but no harm in having the key ready for when I'm ready to peer (and ty for the peerage btw)
lobbes: asciilifeform: I may as well grab the peering key ahead of time. Feel free to send gpggram when ready (I'll be monitoring the logs)
asciilifeform: lobbes: lemme know when yer ready for a peering key gpggram.
asciilifeform: d4: currently, at least 1 peer needs to either not sit behind nat, or have working port fwding.
d4: One thing: if PEER and KEY has been set, do the other person need to set AT?
asciilifeform: (prefix commands w/ '%', e.g. '%peer')
dulapbot: Logged on 2022-09-16 11:55:04 asciilifeform: copypaste: see here re wat-do with jonsykkel's peering info ( you want PEER jonsykkel , then, KEY jonsykkel thekeyhegaveyou , then, AT jonsykkel theaddrinfohegaveyou )
bitbot: (pest) 2022-10-14 crtdaydreams[jonsykkel|signpost]: http://logs.bitdash.io/asciilifeform/2022-10-14#1114030 << would you like a peering key? I can send you one through your age key.
asciilifeform: phf: likely because he aint peered w/ dulapbot , and so it walks from the latter to asciilifeform then to him, and each time sits in the hearsay clink
phf: that's the only two peers i've ever really tested, so i'm not sure if other creds are still even legit
asciilifeform: phf: from all peers or only awt & asciilifeform ?
phf: actually not sure what happened but none of the peers on my list (ascii, trinque) respond
phf: awt, i seem to have lost peering. is your ip still 200.122.181.26?
asciilifeform: copypaste: see here re wat-do with jonsykkel's peering info ( you want PEER jonsykkel , then, KEY jonsykkel thekeyhegaveyou , then, AT jonsykkel theaddrinfohegaveyou )
copypaste: if no one wants to peer w/me that's fine lol enjoy your secret club i guess, the lack of a default way to peer probably prevents a lot of spam but also makes ur network dead
copypaste: who will peer w/me?
bitbot: (pest) 2022-07-04 billymg: also revealed a bug in the crawler. i guess sometimes nodes return loopback addresses in their peer lists, and this time since the crawler and node are running on the same box those actually responded when probed
asciilifeform brought up pestron, but nao lulzily not sees peers, not even folx w/ static ip
thimbronion: OR when an AT entry is manually configured for a new peer.
thimbronion: I see so a station initiates a Prod exchange only once per peer on startup.
asciilifeform observes, unrelatedly, that evidently none of dulapbot's pest peerings other than to asciilifeform's desk (still in a crate, ftr) in fact worked. apologies to anyone who may've been relying on its log
dulapbot: (pest) 2022-07-28 billymg[asciilifeform]: i'll try generating some keys for you to peer with bitbot and crawlerbot, might have some luck there (e.g. signpost peered no problem with bitbot, but to this day no luck with this station)
dulapbot: (pest) 2022-07-26 asciilifeform: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/pest/2022-07-25#1010638 << imho could make sense to have a lubytron where can ask >1 peer for $frag; but not l2+ (cuz ruinously, 'geometrically' expensive, and the traffic will be pure noise to all but the 1 intended recipient)
signpost: a nice thing about using OC is you don't have to have any of the peers coordinate, i.e. "A pls send M1-M3, B pls M4-6" etc
signpost: peers that care to do so reply with an offer to supply a stream of encoded "check blocks" in OC terms (encoded message blocks).
signpost: using online-codes, the scheme would be to send to peers a request to transfer the item identified by $HASH. perhaps this is a message type that's part of the broadcast chain of messages.
asciilifeform: jonsykkel: they still have timestamp (and still signed/ciphered using $peer's key like erry other msg)
jonsykkel: crtdaydreams: default behavior of my prog in case of broken chain is retarded (getdata missing hash evry 10sec), u gotta either %resolve the peer thats has broken chain (%wot to figure out who) or set %knob gdint 10000. u proly want to do BOTH
gregorynyssa: billymg: can I try peering with you?
billymg: and they're both peered directly with bitbot and myself, so not sure why that is
jonsykkel: peering info ^
gregorynyssa: jonsykkel: are you running your own station? would you like to be peers with me?
gregorynyssa: asciilifeform: I would like to try to add your station as a peer.
gregorynyssa: asciilifeform: also, could you send me your peering details?
asciilifeform: i.e. a peer can of course construct an arbitrarily-long chain that'll skip the staleness test. but a stranger -- cannot.
asciilifeform: cgra: aha, timestampism is specifically against replays, rather than 'make peer behave'
cgra: (at least for me personally) hard-to-picture scenarios like above, seem to exist how the stale check is bypassed, and hence seems cleaner to not try to force a peer to behave. instead let him spam or let his clock drift, and let the problem show up as is, with minimal indirection and gotchas. then you can decide whether some action required
cgra: asciilifeform: peer B sent funny timestamps first, then sent a good one to a common peer C of A and B. C now getdatas the funny items and sends the latest, good one to A. A concludes a broken chain, and getdatas also the funny items from C
asciilifeform: cgra: keep in mind that only direct peers get 'prodded'
asciilifeform: presently only l1 speakers are guaranteed to be distinguishable (from their l1 peer's pov) as immediate msg is prima facie authentic and wot may not contain two entries with colliding handles.
asciilifeform: and so a human joins the pestnet via, for starters, one peering. nao e.g. asciilifeform's bot is in his l3.
asciilifeform: (doubtful that erryone can be arsed to l1 peer with erry bot, nor is there much point in doing so)
asciilifeform: say, anuther pestnet merges with the current one via peering one or two stations. and then same again.
cgra: asciilifeform: selfchain having the locking thing makes me think how much does it make sense if you still gotta trust the choke-point peer(s) between you and some semi-rando (l2). and how big biz is there with a semi-rando anyway
asciilifeform: cgra: indeed separate pestnets can be joined if at least 1 peer from each form a mutual peering.
thimbronion: Ok I see what was wrong. Basically %unpeer was deleting random keys.
shinohai: (Funny it crashed when I ran %unpeer ... so guess I should have removed key before unpeer)
shinohai: I'm really going to have coffee now this time, will re-peer with your new info in a bit.
crtdaydreams: needs to be change to peer_id
shinohai: crtdaydreams: when I ran `%unpeer crtdaydreams` now my blatta station crashed and won't restart. So may be a bit before I can have a look at it.
signpost: phf: sent ya peering deets a while back, but lmk later if you need resent.
phf: crtdaydreams: ty, i'll add you once i can multipeer
crtdaydreams: pest peering info and key if interested
crtdaydreams: asciilifeform: yup, will do (actually reason didn't peer right away was a local wot clash from runnning two instances on the one machine lols)
asciilifeform: crtdaydreams: ftr oughta give folx nick when sending peering info
thimbronion: phf: currently blatta will spam all peers with GETDATA requests if a packet with a broken is received from any peer
asciilifeform: imho 'make proper p2p net with wot peers' is a rather obv. idea. it is only the 'devil in details' that aint 100% obv., there are practical headaches implicit in the problem space.
phf: signpost: is asciilifeform still peering?
phf: with pest, presumably, the two immediate solutions would be to host your own intermediary, or else use pestnet as your peering network
phf: thehorrors: this is fundamental internet, you can't peer two peers that have dynamic ips, without having a third peer with a static ip
vex: pest is exactly perfect for peer comms on trb
dulapbot: Logged on 2021-11-29 13:30:15 signpost: the correct social topology is human-sized, e.g. the number of reasonable pest peerings.
thehorrors: well it all depeds, right? How big your AT is, how long you've been away, etc. If you are the only peer in my AT and I want to talk to you once a week versus if I have a net of 100 addresses and I talk to them every day
vex: peer discovery ain't no barbie shit
thehorrors: my understanding of the spec is that peers who don't recognize the packets will just quietly drop them, so maybe that wouldn't be that bad? Unless operators explicitly monitor traffic and firewall these addresses
crtdaydreams: thehorrors: if you write yer own impl. nothing to prevent from flooding packets in the name of updating your AT, but realistically such behaviour will most likely get you unpeered
thehorrors: signpost: okay, that would fine I suppose. Assuming the peer you are looking for is online. One can think of a periodic proadcast perhaps?
thehorrors: crtdaydreams: that would work if you have > 1 peers, at least one with reliable address.
crtdaydreams: ttp://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/asciilifeform/2022-07-06#1110747 wouldn't this be an example of when you use the /achtung command to update yourself in all your peers AT?
signpost: say, send a gpg-gram with new peering info.
signpost: supposing you both change, you'll have to signal the change through your remaining peers.
dulapbot: cgra last seen here on 2022-04-11 10:25:10: asciilifeform: by 'plugged shut' i mean, even if all the known trb oom disease was cured, there's still a middle-man who can fake incoming messages to whatever he feels like, such as invalid, ban-inducing blocks, and cause trb to ban each and every traditional peer
asciilifeform: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/asciilifeform/2022-07-03#1110369 << 'gag' tailor-made for this kinda thing. ( assuming anyone will even peer the d00d, lol )
verisimilitude: Let the count of zero indicate all current peers sent the corresponding packet.
asciilifeform: also can't resist to bite, how wouldja 'constant space' when can add new peers ?
verisimilitude: My solution exposes Pest with two logs: A log of red packets and a log of packet identifiers with a count and list of peer identifiers who sent the packets; a special value enables cases in which all peers sent the packet to use constant space.
dulapbot: Logged on 2021-11-28 19:37:11 asciilifeform: signpost: somewhat apropos, thought of your lubytron in context of possible pheature: pestron takes a local dir and 'hosts'. peers (and optionally broader pestnet members, e.g. l2/l3) can visit e.g. http://localhost:8000/signpost and see his 'www'.
asciilifeform: ('peering' orgs dun pay for bw in the usual sense)
bitbot: (pest) 2021-11-08 shinohai: That worked, ran /unpeer then /peer followed by /at with ip and now no double entry
asciilifeform: phf: bug; [x|y|z..] normally marks receipt of multiple copies of hearsay msg when >1 peer sends. which obv. aint aboutta happen on a station with 1 peer (not to mention oughta mark distinct senders)
asciilifeform: phf: ftr dulapbot at the time of the lulzy [asciilifeform|asciilifeform|asciilifeform...] was peered only to asciilifeform
signpost: asciilifeform: ah cool, will send peering info this evening.
dulapbot: Logged on 2022-06-17 01:21:16 verisimilitude: How should a client handle a slightly-belligerent peer? Ignoring the message is no option, due to the chain, requiring the client at least remember to not attempt to get it.
verisimilitude: How should a client handle a slightly-belligerent peer? Ignoring the message is no option, due to the chain, requiring the client at least remember to not attempt to get it.
asciilifeform comes up short re how not related. read phf's observation as 'there oughta be a way to ask $peer at time t 'are we in sync'', which atm is offered in 'prod' mechanism
asciilifeform: phf: orig. blatta worx under net if a) peer not in nat b) you find yer ephemeral port manually and tell other folx to connect there c) you can be arsed to add a fwd rule and perma-open a port, and remember to tell people
phf: asciilifeform: did your pest peering information change? 71.191...
asciilifeform: ( thimbronion's current blatta, yes, 'stick shift', requires some massage to keep peerings going )
asciilifeform: i.e. worx exactly like e.g. 'skype' but with ~erry~ peer able to play role of the hq which breaks you outta nat
asciilifeform: given how there are no private keys in pest, only peering keys known simult. to both ends of a peering.
signpost: what if one's l1 peers periodically attested to the head-message of their l1?
asciilifeform: it also allows formulating a meaningful q to 'ask yer l1 peers' (as peer msgs are prima facie authentic)
signpost: if messages flood to all peers equally, and carry no information over which nodes they have propagated, dun see with what to distinguish.
asciilifeform: both bobs quite possibly reach you via the same l1 peer.
asciilifeform: phf: observe btw that a good % of hearsay on the current pestnet is 'from my peer but somehow peering aint working atm'
phf: i think peer/hearsay is an elegant model, specifically allows for all kinds of interesting hearsay, e.g. toilet http client, personal telegram translator, etc. i suspect if you start restricting "what kind of hearsay" will limit the use cases significantly to essentially "better irc"
dulapbot: Logged on 2022-01-27 09:39:16 PeterL: I'm thinking of the situation where two nets come together, both have a guy named "bob", can one pick a different name without having to re-peer with everybody?
billymg: but for other 60% of peers, worked fine, with the same steps, so dunno
billymg: shinohai: iirc our peering never worked properly, so the bot was seeing your messages through asciilifeform
billymg doesn't mind peering the bot with others, if they want a direct link
shinohai: am peered with same keyz as before best I can tell, might nuke 'em and try again.
billymg: shinohai: ah, for the log bot to see you you'll have to be peered with asciilifeform or myself
signpost: this might even be a gateway into wot-tronics for normies. consider what peering with trusted neighbors might provide.
thimbronion: Also, aside from namespaces, what are the politics of merging two large nets? How do you decide to peer your existing net to another vs. spin up a new station to join another net? Presumable if you want to join a high value net organized around a different subject you spin up a new station rather than bring in a large wholly unrelated net and end up getting blocked.
thimbronion: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/asciilifeform/2022-05-09#1100657 << specified algo only allows locking to l1 peers and also is a heuristic, as stated. Empirically people don't update their graph all that much.
asciilifeform: thimbronion: say, is so 'locked', and then 5 peers with 1. nao you have 5->1->0, through no fault of yer own, and this invalidates your 'lock'
dulapbot: Logged on 2022-05-08 12:41:17 thimbronion: Why not allow "locking" of selected l2+ handles to a set of peers? If a message from a locked handle does NOT come through ALL peers to which locked with n bounces, annotate. Thus if alice and bob both have a mallory and mallory locally is locked at 1 bounce to bob, mallory with for example 1 bounce via alice ONLY will be annotated. This would of course be a heurstic and not
thimbronion: Why not allow "locking" of selected l2+ handles to a set of peers? If a message from a locked handle does NOT come through ALL peers to which locked with n bounces, annotate. Thus if alice and bob both have a mallory and mallory locally is locked at 1 bounce to bob, mallory with for example 1 bounce via alice ONLY will be annotated. This would of course be a heurstic and not
whaack: before a certain point in time. This is done under the assumption that it would be very difficult to get a fraudulent block hash through peer review when updating the code."
dulapbot: Logged on 2022-01-27 09:45:03 PeterL: but say I want to peer with both bobs, how is that handled?
dulapbot: Logged on 2022-01-27 09:45:03 PeterL: but say I want to peer with both bobs, how is that handled?
signpost: I don't see much harm if shinohai labels our peering "goatfucker". what someone calls you is conceivably their business.
dulapbot: Logged on 2021-07-01 18:18:30 asciilifeform: gregory4: peer can't 'set own difficulty' because this would require answering packets which come in w/ insufficient pow
dulapbot: Logged on 2022-05-05 05:51:21 crtdaydreams: 2) Employs the use of a wot in which several peers can sign to say that "x key belongs to y handle" which can be automated. A simple "majority rules" would determine whether or not that peer can lay claim to that nick.
asciilifeform: verisimilitude: refers to a given station's direct peers
dulapbot: Logged on 2022-03-25 20:03:40 asciilifeform: (nuffin stops a peer from later adding the warez to his own share and then pass to ~his~ l1. is the logical way to propagate it.)
dulapbot: Logged on 2022-05-05 05:51:21 crtdaydreams: 2) Employs the use of a wot in which several peers can sign to say that "x key belongs to y handle" which can be automated. A simple "majority rules" would determine whether or not that peer can lay claim to that nick.
asciilifeform: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/asciilifeform/2022-05-05#1100135 << there is no public key crypto in pest. pest keys are secret keys (i.e. known strictly to a given pair of peers), your statement makes 0 sense in context of pest
dulapbot: Logged on 2022-05-05 05:45:14 crtdaydreams: 1) Arguably less sophisticated solution, but werks. All peers are identified by their fingerprint and the entire notion of handles is purely client-side. When peering the peer will submit a handle, if the handle is already taken within your network the peers handle will default to "handle_fingerprint", from the client side you can then change the client-side handle of that
crtdaydreams: 2) Employs the use of a wot in which several peers can sign to say that "x key belongs to y handle" which can be automated. A simple "majority rules" would determine whether or not that peer can lay claim to that nick.
crtdaydreams: 1) Arguably less sophisticated solution, but werks. All peers are identified by their fingerprint and the entire notion of handles is purely client-side. When peering the peer will submit a handle, if the handle is already taken within your network the peers handle will default to "handle_fingerprint", from the client side you can then change the client-side handle of that
dulapbot: Logged on 2022-03-16 09:50:23 asciilifeform: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/asciilifeform/2022-03-16#1084540 << in principle you can have any # of stations you like on a pestnet if you set a reasonable bounce cutoff. however asciilifeform's official pov is that a group of mutual ~peers~ must be <= 'dunbar' number. the design reflects
dulapbot: Logged on 2022-04-26 00:53:17 thehorrors: billymg: okay, agreed, but why is there no food and clothes on the black market? Can I buy a sack of potatoes for bitcoin from a peer? Why is there a trillion market cap and I cannot do dick with my coins except buying some hosting offshore maybe?
dulapbot: Logged on 2022-04-26 00:53:17 thehorrors: billymg: okay, agreed, but why is there no food and clothes on the black market? Can I buy a sack of potatoes for bitcoin from a peer? Why is there a trillion market cap and I cannot do dick with my coins except buying some hosting offshore maybe?
thehorrors: billymg: okay, agreed, but why is there no food and clothes on the black market? Can I buy a sack of potatoes for bitcoin from a peer? Why is there a trillion market cap and I cannot do dick with my coins except buying some hosting offshore maybe?
dulapbot: Logged on 2022-04-23 02:13:20 crtdaydreams: can be argued that "if $peer2 of $peer1 wants a file, then $peer1 ought to download it, then share it with $peer2
asciilifeform: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/asciilifeform/2022-04-23#1098289 << this is rather redundant in pestronics -- recall that a pest station communicates ~exclusively~ with its l1 peers.
crtdaydreams: can be argued that "if $peer2 of $peer1 wants a file, then $peer1 ought to download it, then share it with $peer2
crtdaydreams: immediate $peer that is forwarding could restrict the availability of a file on their station, so on $host it might be 1111, but on $peer forwarding, it might be 0101
crtdaydreams: peer forwarding would have to be optional ofc
crtdaydreams: signpost: that's the thing. having another bit that determines availability is another thing again. can set e.g. 0111 "only upon direct request for $hash" "to $peer of $peer"
crtdaydreams: signpost: peer forwarding
crtdaydreams: whearas another file might be 1111 "publicly advertised $hash" "to all $peer (s)"
adlai meanwhile has improved understanding of pest spec; writing peer seems like a reasonable target, although at the complex end of the range.
adlai imagines e.g. hourly report, "dropped five gigabytes of martian liquishit, tolerated three megabytes of peered garbage"
signpost: but yes, entirely compatible with the actual definition of a peerage.
crawlerbot: 205.134.172.27 (Alive), h=732160, v=99999, United States - peers: 9 - last probed: 27m ago
crawlerbot: 205.134.172.26 (Alive), h=732160, v=99999, United States - peers: 15 - last probed: 27m ago
crawlerbot: 205.134.172.6 (Alive), h=732160, v=99999, United States - peers: 22 - last probed: 28m ago
crawlerbot: 71.191.220.241 (Alive), h=732160, v=99999, United States - peers: 27 - last probed: 28m ago
crawlerbot: 205.134.172.28 (Alive), h=732160, v=99999, United States - peers: 38 - last probed: 28m ago
crawlerbot: 208.94.240.42 (Alive), h=732160, v=99999, United States - peers: 42 - last probed: 27m ago
crawlerbot: 205.134.172.4 (Alive), h=732160, v=70001, United States - peers: 59 - last probed: 27m ago
crawlerbot: 75.106.222.93 (Could not connect!), h=732153, v=99999, United States - peers: 239 - last probed: 23m ago
mangol: i.e. prison must not have windows from which inmates can peer at the free world?
crtdaydreams: will be able to do pest when I get home, will need a peer to do nat fwd
verisimilitude: Give me some other perch from which I may peer down and sneer at my lessers, then.
asciilifeform: cgra: right, there's no concept of 'authentic peer' or peer identity at all in traditional trb
cgra: asciilifeform: by 'plugged shut' i mean, even if all the known trb oom disease was cured, there's still a middle-man who can fake incoming messages to whatever he feels like, such as invalid, ban-inducing blocks, and cause trb to ban each and every traditional peer
dulapbot: Logged on 2022-04-11 08:15:59 cgra: asciilifeform: also been in the process of grasping what it means for trb being completely at the mercy of the middle-man as it currently is. only apparent cure being the wot integration. currently thinking that banning some peers, keeping a list of anothers, is therefore not an extremely important aspect, if a middle-man could fuck you up anytime anyway: like distort all messages from your peers so that they end up all being banned.
cgra: and perhaps this means that you could just have a relatively small list of recorded peer addresses and/or banned addresses, and not lose much, compared to current mechanisms
cgra: asciilifeform: also been in the process of grasping what it means for trb being completely at the mercy of the middle-man as it currently is. only apparent cure being the wot integration. currently thinking that banning some peers, keeping a list of anothers, is therefore not an extremely important aspect, if a middle-man could fuck you up anytime anyway: like distort all messages from your peers so that they end up all being banned.
mangol: i.e. get comfortable in old age, and no longer want much of anything besides approval of wife and peer group?
bitbot: Logged on 2022-04-03 22:47:30 billymg: results from db of nodes returning it as one of their peers: http://paste.deedbot.org/?id=sMnv (previously this query returned 0)
billymg: whaack: for the longest time no other nodes were returning it as a peer (which is currently the only way the crawler can discover a new node). i noticed yesterday that it was finally found and queried to see who had reported it
whaack: cool, weird it took so long and weird i have No peers, i wonder if somehow that is slowing down my sync, or if it's just normal verification grind
whaack: billymg: did you manually add my node or did it get picked up by your crawlerbot automatically? I still have no peers for some reason
crawlerbot: 103.6.212.28 (Alive), h=418424, v=99999, New Zealand - peers: None - last probed: 7m ago
crawlerbot: 205.134.172.26 (Alive), h=730436, v=99999, United States - peers: 10 - last probed: 11m ago
crawlerbot: 205.134.172.6 (Alive), h=730436, v=99999, United States - peers: 11 - last probed: 12m ago
crawlerbot: 205.134.172.27 (Alive), h=730436, v=99999, United States - peers: 15 - last probed: 11m ago
crawlerbot: 205.134.172.28 (Alive), h=730436, v=99999, United States - peers: 27 - last probed: 12m ago
crawlerbot: 71.191.220.241 (Alive), h=730436, v=99999, United States - peers: 27 - last probed: 12m ago
crawlerbot: 208.94.240.42 (Alive), h=730436, v=99999, United States - peers: 49 - last probed: 12m ago
crawlerbot: 205.134.172.4 (Alive), h=730436, v=70001, United States - peers: 54 - last probed: 12m ago
crawlerbot: 75.106.222.93 (Could not connect!), h=730432, v=99999, United States - peers: 222 - last probed: 7m ago
whaack: !c peers 103.36.92.112
dulapbot: whaack last seen here on 2022-03-31 10:41:00: asciilifeform: the irc interface means it can be integrated with pest so that upload is limited to pest peers
billymg: results from db of nodes returning it as one of their peers: http://paste.deedbot.org/?id=sMnv (previously this query returned 0)
watchglass: asciilifeform: my valid commands are: src, uptime, help, probe, peers, version, poll
whaack: asciilifeform: the irc interface means it can be integrated with pest so that upload is limited to pest peers
thimbronion: phf send an IGNORE message to all peers every n seconds so that peers who receive a message from you on the ephemeral port can send back to that same port
thimbronion: phf: yes, peers will autoupdate
phf: also policy wise if i say start sending packets from new ip, will this automatically update my entry in peer's at table?
phf: asciilifeform: are you using blatta? can you check that your peer is still operational, i might've nuked it by accident
asciilifeform: iirc blatta not yet fully implements the nat driller, so if you're in a nat, can only directly peer w/ people who are not
asciilifeform: iirc right nao nearly erryone is peered w/ nearly erryone else
asciilifeform: phf: once yer up & running, rec to peer w/ others; then won't rely on only asciilifeform's station
asciilifeform: phf: peering info for asciilifeform's station when you've the cycles.
verisimilitude: Have it treat one peer specially, as the user himself.
asciilifeform: for reasoning re subj, must assume that all 'ddos' packets are replays of recent, valid ones from peers.
asciilifeform: obv. also will depend on # of peers, also.
signpost: verisimilitude: this'd be a mighty fine item, if it could reliably act as a point-to-point connection with peers.
asciilifeform: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/asciilifeform/2022-03-25#1088991 << afaik worked from beginning (or at least since thimbronion added the 'ignore' packet erry n sec thing) if peer is unnat'd
asciilifeform: it aint particularly different from how was done in earlier systems. w/ the important difference that there is no central server (a la skype's), instead any peer who already escaped, will help own peers escape
asciilifeform: (2 nat'd peers needed to have at least 1 untrapped peer in common, then can receive broadcasts from 1 anuther)
asciilifeform: in orig. blatta, nat traversal to an un-nat'd peer always worked.
asciilifeform: plenty of ways, in principle, to abuse yer peers. but they'll eventually unplug you
asciilifeform: can e.g. spam yer peers, or whatnot
asciilifeform: individual station operator could, naturally do this. may end up ostracised as bw hog by peers if it adds up to ungodly bw
crtdaydreams: i.e. if don't have philes, make req to peers for file, if peer has it, download to /tmp, send, delete.
crtdaydreams: would be interesting to write script though that __can__ "pass" warez req. across peers thought decrypt/encrypt. would be possible or violate point of pest filesharing?
asciilifeform: crtdaydreams: i rec to read the spec. then will realize that in fact a station ~only~ speaks to its peers.
asciilifeform: (nuffin stops a peer from later adding the warez to his own share and then pass to ~his~ l1. is the logical way to propagate it.)
|
→