/l/ - The Lounge

Off-topic discussion

All users of /b/: read >>>/meta/3253
[Make a Post]
[X]





Nanonymous No.8834 [D][U][F][S][L][A][C] >>8836 >>8861 >>8873 >>9033
File: 6c8eca87b698cd147326c9c60c87fa477e685c76e206aac124ac7818bc7c41e7.jpg (dl) (36.13 KiB)

The sad thing is knowing that this place is doomed by it's design.Tor posting without captcha is great but it only works with low traffic websites.If this place becomes popular we will all be solving captchas or get drowned in spam from feds and retards.

Nanonymous No.8835 [D]

>If this place becomes popular
It will never be popular because normalfags won't bother installing Tor Browser to access one site (they have nothing to hide so using Tor daily is also out). Do you know any high traffic Tor-only site? Bonus points if it isn't CP or drug site.

Nanonymous No.8836 [D][U][F]
File: 87ad0822fe8271db87388f40e7eff6e63e6131711bf624a89bb168f1d4625262.jpg (dl) (69.33 KiB)

>>8834
Nothing lasts forever. Don't worry about it.
When this place dies we move to a better board. Perhaps the problem of decentralization will be solved by then.

Nanonymous No.8837 [D] >>8838

>Boo-hoo, I may someday have to fill in captcha before I shitpost.

Nanonymous No.8838 [D] >>8840 >>9657

>>8837
>Boo-hoo, I am stupid nigger that can't read and understand at the same time

Nanonymous No.8839 [D] >>9108

There are less people than were there month ago.

Nanonymous No.8840 [D] >>8841

>>8838
Allow me to paraphrase OP for you, since you seem to suffer from poor reading-comprehension:
>The cost of having a popular site is having a captcha to dissuade bots and spammers. I'd rather not have to fill in a captcha to make a post, but I want this site to be popular, thus it is a catch-twenty-two. And the fact that I can't have what I want upsets me. Waa-waa, boo-hoo-hoo!

This is yet another shit thread, and OP should feel bad for having made it.

Nanonymous No.8841 [D] >>8842 >>8844 >>8873

>>8840
Captcha is one thing, but keyword in OP post is popular. Again, popular. He's afraid of nano becoming, one more time, popular because it'll attract low quality posters and CIAniggers, and, like you said, captcha will be required.

Nanonymous No.8842 [D][U][F] >>8844 >>8884 >>8923
File: 4a826741164593a49e57bb36668c569f0bdc1ffca4796125378ea70828b19071.gif (dl) (23.88 KiB)

>>8841
Am I the only one who fears the exact opposite? This thread is proof that some treat nanochan as their personal blog. Same with umarufag and yeatsfag, it's only possible on imageboards with small population.

Nanonymous No.8844 [D] >>8845 >>8853

>>8841
If OP fears this site becoming popular, why does he lament captcha in the first place? Clearly, his woe is captcha. But if this thread is about the fear of this site becoming popular, then this thread is all the more shit. Nobody wants to hang out with a bunch of petty dipshits, except for other petty dipshits, in which case you'll find yourself in good company. You'll never be more popular here, than you are in real life. And frankly, law enforcement agencies couldn't care less about you or anyone here, so any fear of this site being popular among them is entirely unfounded.

>>8842
I fear this site becoming another dull circlejerk echo-chamber.

Nanonymous No.8845 [D] >>8847

>>8844
>dull circlejerk echo-chamber
It already is more or less. Is it inevitable?

Nanonymous No.8847 [D]

>>8845
>Is it inevitable
Probably.

Nanonymous No.8853 [D]

>>8844
>And frankly, law enforcement agencies couldn't care less about you or anyone here

That's what a CIA nigger would say.Law enforcement is keeping tabs on me ever since i downloaded all those natsoc videos in 2016.I bet my online silence worries them.They think that i am a ticking time bomb, the next Breivik or worse.I definitely have the skills to murder 500 people with nothing but a shoelace.

Nanonymous No.8854 [D]

delete this.

Nanonymous No.8861 [D] >>8862

>>8834
Nanochan has dealt with spammers before, with a temporary captcha. The board is unlikely ever to become popular enough for it to be necessary permanently. hakase was working on an interesting alternative to captchas that involved creating a computationally-intensive, disposable identity that would be required to post. It didn't end up working in the end for reasons I don't recall, but it was a good idea, and combined with ZKP-based authentication, something like that could provide disposable identities that could prevent spam, but preserve anonymity.

But as anon said, onion sites that don't host contraband markets or ceepee generally don't get a lot of traffic. So your concern seems premature. And faggoty.

Nanonymous No.8862 [D] >>8864

>>8861
The reason was that it was too easy for those with a good computer, while being too hard for users on the opposite end. (it took me 10 minutes to make one on average with a 6 year old cpu)
It's for the best though, you lose the benefit of anonymity a tor website offers for not much in return

Nanonymous No.8864 [D] >>8881

>>8862
It would be better if it took 20-30 mins for people with the latest processors and hours or even days for people with older processors. Sucks to be people with Core2Duos, sure, but it would prevent spam, and as long as hakase didn't funban somebody with an ancient processor, it wouldn't really be a problem. Would need to be GPU resistant, too.
>you lose the benefit of anonymity a tor website offers
With hakase's original scheme, sure. But not if you added ZKP-based authentication.


Nanonymous No.8873 [D]

>>8834
>>8841
What makes for a good imageboard are two things, culture and moderation, nano's has both a subculture of it's own(natsoc, nichijou references, hapase memes) and good moderation, if a board has a strong culture the newfags are pushed to "integrate" into it, this help to keep post quality high, while good moderation will keep illegal material(cp etc) banned. I'm optimistic that a captcha won't be necessary.

Nanonymous No.8881 [D] >>8938

>>8864
>But not if you added ZKP-based authentication
That was actually what I suggested to hakase to implement back when the token thing was still being tried out. It's pretty cool in theory, but in practice it's not worth it at all. Since there's only like one moderator on this site currently (hakase), the response times are not going to be as you would expect for a larger imageboard. Tokens don't prevent the spam from happening in the first place, like captchas would.
Also, spammers can stock up on tokens long before a spam wave and unleash it all at once, and once hakase or a mod bans a token, he could just use another one and continue with the spam. Although this isn't as much of a problem as the first one.

Nanonymous No.8884 [D] >>8885 >>8886

>>8842
>Am I the only one who fears the exact opposite?
If you want a glimpse how nano would look if it was popular, visit >>>4cuck/b/ and >>>pigchan/b

Nanonymous No.8885 [D] >>8886

>>8884 pardon my unfamiliarity, but is 4chan referred to as cuckchan? Also is 8ch reffered to as pigchan? I hear these endearing names used quite a lot on this board. Pardon my new faggory, but I must settle this once and for all.

Nanonymous No.8886 [D] >>8894 >>8923

>>8884
It's .onion.
>>8885
Yes, although nanochan is composed mainly of /pol/ /8/channers, the worst breed, ignorant crossposters, dare I say 4chan invaders, as nanochan was marketed only on /tech/ afaik.

Nanonymous No.8894 [D][U][F] >>8895 >>8941
File: 702a8ea22a15dbe4b95c07c5c78cf5e01f9bf5dc86168e731b2a2ffb4e6984d9.jpg (dl) (36.13 KiB)

>If this place becomes popular we will all be solving captchas or get drowned in spam from feds and retards.
If this place gets popular not even captcha will save us really.
Look up nichan and all the retard spam they get non stop.
Kids watch retarded "deep web" youtube video, then they come to imageboards to talk absurd levels of bullshit, make a dozen shit threads and forget about it forever.
Also requiring captcha doesn't even require the website to be popular, one single retard could just spambot it all right now.
>>8886
Not to defend /tech/(even more so recent /tech/) or anything, but it didn't decay alone. And if you look to the intense loss of quality other boards and imageboards have been dealing with for the last 8 years, nano chan was able to reap some ok people from places that nowadays are bad, but compared to the rest, not really that bad.
What's an alternative to "pigchan"? 4chan? Spacechan spamshit?
Reminder that the ruining "pigchan" (taken over by jew Jim Watkins) along with 4chan (which terrible moderation+moot+hiro really helped) is a jewish operation as material leaked by wikileaks has proved.


Nanonymous No.8895 [D] >>8900

>>8894
>as material leaked by wikileaks has proved.

Link to the leaks?

Nanonymous No.8900 [D][U][F] >>8903 >>9359
File: f6ba6be65bb0d2ca3b3ccf05e77538cfe1e6596a395a2b890e0f3141795696cb.jpg (dl) (110.30 KiB)

>>8895
Sorry I don't have the exact link, but I saved it.

Nanonymous No.8903 [D] >>8982

>>8900
daily reminder that /pol/yps dont need to be manipulated; theyre completely retarded on their own

Nanonymous No.8923 [D]

>>8842
>>8886
>>8093
Samefag
This is the same /pol/ spamming retard that stands out jarringly amongst everyone else on this board for having extremely shit opinions.

Nanonymous No.8938 [D] >>8956

>>8881
>Since there's only like one moderator on this site currently (hakase), the response times are not going to be as you would expect for a larger imageboard.
?
Zero-knowledge proofs don't have to be verified by a human.
>Tokens don't prevent the spam from happening in the first place, like captchas would.
It would be trivial to detect if a token was being used for automated spam and to ban the bad token. Or suspend it until hakase's review. A scheme like the one I'm proposing makes spamming infeasible and only "punishes" honest users once, with a long token creation time. Captchas punish honest users every time they make a post. Tokens are superior.

Nanonymous No.8941 [D]

>>8894 4chan just bans now. No warning. People are migrating after NZ. Because they cranked up a zero tolerance for national socialism. Half of the time if not more it was all satire.

Basically if youre not a faggot or liberal(faggot). You will find yourself banned eventually.

Nanonymous No.8956 [D] >>8957 >>8960 >>8984

>>8938
>Zero-knowledge proofs don't have to be verified by a human.
I'm saying that you need a human (eg. hakase) to discover and ban spammers, and the lead time between spam and discovery is the real problem for a site like nanochan, which a token based system does not solve, as it does not directly attack the issue of bots posting in place of a human.
>It would be trivial to detect if a token was being used for automated spam
A smart spammer would attempt to bypass the spam filter by looking through the source code for methods to bypass them, and use multiple tokens at once in a single spam wave.
Of course, hakase could just not release the spam filter code, but that's a slippery slope; reddit did the same, and eventually they went completely closed source anyway. If the tokens must be generated within a reasonable time frame, a spammer with a powerful cpu would still have a considerable advantage over regular users, and easily stock up on tokens. That's the real issue here, the disparity in processing power between anons.
But maybe, if the hashing algorithm could
>generate a token in a constant amount of cpu cycles (instead of taking between 3-30 minutes like hakase's implementation does)
>tokens take an absurd amount of time to generate (1-2 months)
>it stresses out a different pc component, that doesn't increase in power consumption when used (like a cpu would)
it might just work. Also has the added benefit of forcing newfags to lurk before posting, and filtering out undesirables who find it not worth it to waste their time making a token just to shitpost on a site full of people they hate.

Nanonymous No.8957 [D]

>>8956
Oh, and another downside of using tokens is that along with permabanning spammers, hakase could also use it to ban any person for whatever reason (take a look at the earlier logs), instead of just deleting posts. Perhaps there is also a way to avoid this, but I don't see how it could, without defeating the entire purpose of banning spammers.

Nanonymous No.8960 [D] >>8968 >>8984

>>8956
I'm opposing tokens. You try to create walled garden, secret club of whatever you boomers call it. At this point we can't call it anonymous because all posts are connected to the token, essence of honeypot forums. It won't stop spammers but make it hard for users to post because who will bother to generate token? The proposition of token taking absurd amount of time to generate is even more absurd than tokens itself. Let at least this part of the Internet remain independent and free as in freedom, tokens are good for Jews and governments.

Nanonymous No.8968 [D] >>8969 >>8971

>>8960
>all posts are connected to the token
I'm the poster you replied to, and the same one that advised hakase to not implement tokens. Ever heard of being a devil's advocate?
>It won't stop spammers but make it hard for users to post because who will bother to generate token
Congrats, you just rephrased my original point.
>The proposition of token taking absurd amount of time to generate is even more absurd than tokens itself
Sounds like my last sentence hit some nerves there.
>free as in freedom
Go suck (((stallman)))'s dick while you're at it, this is an openbsd-hosted forum
>tokens are good for Jews and governments
Why are you making a broad statement like that? Are you trying to make fun of /pol/?

Nanonymous No.8969 [D]

>>8968
"jews" or "kikes" usually trigger brother syndrome.

Nanonymous No.8971 [D] >>8989

>>8968
You seem to be triggered for no good reason. If we agree with not implementing tokens then why do you act so nervous?
>Go suck (((stallman)))'s dick while you're at it, this is an openbsd-hosted forum
Both Stallman and de Raadt have the same goal so what's wrong?

Nanonymous No.8982 [D][U][F] >>8986
File: cd43d04fc5c118ea258ef3b1c4af0cc8e83c43f72fa81aaae9f60f288d110794.gif (dl) (115.38 KiB)

>>8903
Tell your boss that you're useless, not me.


Nanonymous No.8984 [D][U][F] >>9002
File: 564d304d0bfa45c2b5855347cb7cf60465419539e72cc46500120a7d3e0c009b.jpg (dl) (107.15 KiB)

>>8956
>I'm saying that you need a human (eg. hakase) to discover and ban spammers
Interesting. Do you think that email providers have armies of humans reading every email that comes in and rating it for spam, and manually monitoring network and account usage to see if someone tries to, say, send an email to 1,000,000 addresses at once?
Your perspective on this issue is decades out of date.
>A smart spammer would attempt to bypass the spam filter by looking through the source code for methods to bypass them
A smart programmer would ensure that any anti-spam scheme doesn't rely on the secrecy of the source code to be effective. "Assume the enemy knows the system" is a principle of modern cryptography, but it's also a principle of modern spam detection.
>use multiple tokens at once in a single spam wave.
So, let's say we have a spammer with a really fast computer that can generate a token at the low end of the range I identified, 20 minutes. He generates 100 tokens, which takes 2000 minutes, or almost a day and a half. He torifies his little spam script and chuckles as he prepares to unleash a torrent of spam on nanochan. He presses enter, and...nothing happens. nanochan's software detected the absurdly irregular activity, prevented the posts from even appearing, and suspended all 100 tokens pending hakase's review, after which they can be banned en masse with the click of a button. Our would-be spammer spent a day and a half padding his electric bill, and the result was a big nothingburger. This isn't rocket science, anon. It's computer science.
>spammer with a powerful cpu
Already addressed in this and a previous post.
>hakase could also use it to ban any person for whatever reason
And if he starts doing that, it's time to leave nanochan instead of living in an abusive co-dependent IB-owner/IB-user relationshit like cuckchanners and pigchanners. That's a social/psychological problem, not a technological one. And even without tokens, hakase could start arbitrarily removing any post at will. NatSoc? Gone. Or, anti-Nat-Soc? Gone. Maybe he really hates the word "comeuppance," and removes or filters any posts that uses it. If the user has a distinguishable browser fingerprint--you know not everyone here is using Tor Browser, and not everyone who is has exactly the same settings, right?--maybe hakase bans that fingerprint from posting. You're basically asking "What if hakase becomes an asshole?" It has nothing to do with tokens.
>>8960
>walled garden
Anyone can generate a token.
>secret club
Anyone can generate a token.
>boomers
>honeypot
top memeing, anon.

Now, before you all get your panties in a twist, keep in mind that implementing the kind of system I'm talking about, and doing it right, is a non-trivial math/CS problem that hakase has not, to my knowledge, shown any interest in tackling. So it's not going to happen. Not here, anyway. So don't worry about it.

However, none of that changes the fact that it is possible, and viable, and a good solution if spam on a hidden service IB ever becomes a problem.

Nanonymous No.8986 [D][U][F]
File: 5c212257f078f27eff09a105f6fa9fde85401d9fb47c623eec2a2922428560a9.jpg (dl) (821.19 KiB)

>>8982
Why whould I? I'm paid big time for doing nothing.

Nanonymous No.8989 [D]

>>8971
>You seem to be triggered for no good reason
I'm just dishing it back. Not used to long form posts?
>nervous
What?
>so what's wrong
I don't have it out personally for him, even if I think gnu is bloated garbage and the fsf doing activism with their software gets annoying at times, but using buzzwords like "free as in freedom" where they don't belong just makes you look like a freetard to me.

Nanonymous No.9002 [D] >>9009 >>9015

>>8984
>Your perspective on this issue is decades out of date.
God damn dude, you're comparing emails to imageboards? Have you never used one before?
>A smart programmer would ensure that any anti-spam scheme doesn't rely on the secrecy of the source code to be effective.
Yes, but it would be infinitely harder to perform, and requires constant attention in an arms race that I wouldn't bother wasting time on.
>He presses enter, and...nothing happens. nanochan's software detected the absurdly irregular activity
You make a good point here. This site is inactive enough that a simple pph check could easily defeat spam attempts. But that's unrelated to the tokens idea and it still does not solve the problem of accidentally banning innocents posting within this timeframe.
Besides, if our spammer here is too retarded to bypass the automated filter in the first place, then whether he uses one or many tokens does not matter. The many tokens strategy would only be viable for when hakase is actively deleting spam as even more are being made (happened to nanochan earlier on), such that a simple ban for a single token would not deter the spammer.
>This isn't rocket science, anon. It's computer science
kekked
>And if he starts doing that, it's time to leave nanochan
Hakase has already deleted random ass posts by supposed boomers. The precedent is already set. This is why I mentioned checking the logs in my original post. I'm not saying that hakase would, but it's a possibility. And from what I can tell, as long as you have tor and no javascript, the only information hakase can glean from you is your user agent.

Nanonymous No.9009 [D] >>9045 >>9082

>>9002
>God damn dude, you're comparing emails to imageboards?
The problem of detecting spammy text and abuse of network resources is a general case applicable to email and imageboards, and lots of other networked services.
>Yes, but it would be infinitely harder to perform,
Nope. I acknowledged it's a hard math/CS problem. But certainly not an infinitely hard one, and if implemented well, there'd be no arms race. The war would be over, at least for this use-case (hidden service IBs).
>This site is inactive enough that a simple pph check could easily defeat spam attempts
A pph check (# of posts per minute per token) is part of the solution, but a small part. I wasn't wrong when I said your knowledge about this is decades out of date. You're approaching this as though the last 25 years and the tens of millions (or more) of dollars that have been poured into researching heuristics for detecting spam and abusive network behavior never happened. That's not even getting into the new shiny stuff like machine learning, which could train an automated spam detection system with an even greater degree of accuracy than Bayesian inference-based tools.
>The many tokens strategy would only be viable
The many tokens strategy would not be viable at all. A naive extrapolation from limiting ppm for a single token is limiting the number of never-before-seen tokens allowed to post within a certain time span. A small IB like this would see, what, 5 new tokens a day? Tops? If 100 new tokens show up within a short time span, suspend them. This isn't even the kind of hard problem I'm talking about. This is *trivial*. It's a database lookup and an if-else structure. if (new_token_count_last_hour > whatever_integer) { deny_post(); suspend_token(); } else { allow_post(); }


Nanonymous No.9015 [D]

>>9002
"Boomer" is just hapase's word for the schizo nigger that calls absolutely everything a jewish psyops or masonic symbolism or false flag. Absolutely worthless and more importantly disruptive posts.

Nanonymous No.9033 [D] >>9079 >>9082

>>8834
>If this place becomes popular we will all be solving captchas or get drowned in spam from feds and retards.
8ch /tech/ temp. banned Tor posting today due to one spammer.

Nanonymous No.9045 [D] >>9050

>>9009
I am with the other nanon on this issue. Like, I would never even want to be at the place you're proposing.
Points I want to make:
a) I have never, NEVER seen the heuristical-whatever system done right so far
b) Machine learning is no silver bullet; it's just a fucking script with a scripted reward system
c) Overall, that system WILL ban innocents on no grounds whatsoever (like, have you ever considered that something that could be disruprive for one person, could be not for another?)

Also tokens are shit. I am NOT generating a token that will take more than 1 minute, period.
>if (new_token_count_last_hour > whatever_integer) { deny_post(); suspend_token(); } else { allow_post(); }
Yeah, that shit didn't ban innocents at all ever, what a great system! Fucking loser.

Nanonymous No.9050 [D][U][F] >>9051 >>9053
File: 15b1742e0c79e6fb4801b993810ed5d480778b1217bd4ec3ca84f84b933b9c2b.jpg (dl) (88.32 KiB)

>>9045
>I am NOT generating a token that will take more than 1 minute, period.
Based on your "contribution" in this post, I can say with a great deal of certainty that you would not be missed.

Nanonymous No.9051 [D] >>9053

>>9050
Really? I can do it too LOL
Ahem…

Fuck you too, your long-ass walls of text actually contribute nothing, you just self-masturbate to some tech you think is cool and to yourself while doing a poor job at reaching anybody. You are a fucking disgrace to humankind. Why do you still live? Go create your shitty tokenized forum and watch it just die once it outlives its purpose of being a fucking toy for geeks. Or better, just kill yourself. Essentially proposing botnet hardware as the REQUIREMENT for posting, like, are we actually on the same page regarding breaking away from clearnet? Go fuck yourself.

Nanonymous No.9053 [D][U][F] >>9056 >>9113
File: 3cb9602949c0f2f0984d3ea9e0d746869558db69bd41816baf36569cfcbaf92c.gif (dl) (382.30 KiB)

>>9050
>>9051
You're both masturbating mentally on something that is not even a problem right now, we had ONE spammer and that's it and i don't see nano becoming more popular than it is, there are only so many people that are on Tor and are not looking for cp or illegal stuff(banned on nano), plus wise hapase stopped advertising on pigchan. It's gonna be fine and you are both faggots.

Nanonymous No.9056 [D]

>>9053
This is the most awkward and autistic attempt at defusing a conflict that I have seen in a while.
Just relax and be cool man.
>wise hapase
Fuken fagit.

Nanonymous No.9079 [D] >>9085

>>9033
Just btw the spammer is some nigger from here hapase spamming the "hapas are superior" forced meme.

Nanonymous No.9082 [D] >>9083 >>9087 >>9113

>>9009
>But certainly not an infinitely hard one
I agree, not quite sure why I used that word here. My point still stands though.
>tens of millions (or more) of dollars that have been poured into researching heuristics for detecting spam and abusive network behavior
Ignoring how hakase would most likely not use third party nonessential software for nanochan, how many of these can be applied to imageboard culture?
>machine learning
We're getting a bit out of hand here. Hakase hosts nanochan off an old laptop running openbsd, not a supercomputer with nvidia cuda powered neural networks or whatever. Also, maybe you're willing to spend years of your life implementing such a system for imageboards, but I wouldn't get my hopes up. Devs do it for free right now; most can't even make a bog standard imageboard software without making it bloated laggy garbage.
>If 100 new tokens show up within a short time span, suspend them.
And what happens if someone unrelated decides to post with a new token within that timeframe?
>>9033
Pretty funny how codemonkey's been suspected/ousted to be the hapa spammer. Would could've guessed he's on nanochan too

Nanonymous No.9083 [D] >>10393

>>9082
http://oxwugzccvk3dk6tj.onion/tech/res/1057801.html
>Another anon in the now deleted thread theorized that the sheer speed at which the hapas spam is posted would only be possible with local access to the servers. The last thread once attacked by the hapas spammer (codemonkey) was getting atleast 1 post per second, maybe more.
>nstead of writing a script and regex to auto-delete the hapas spam, which would be incredibly easy because he's spamming the same thing every time; they choose to simply censor a thread.

>>nigmods enabled craptcha
>lmfao, this is exactly what I wanted from you faggots. stupid cucked white people who are too fucking LAZY to properly counter the spam. I could think of multiple ways to counter my own spam scripts, yet you didn't do any of those things. Tor is now banned or severely restricted on all major 8chan boards.
>Have a nice day wiggers.
>Hail Eurasia

Nanonymous No.9085 [D]

>>9079
>Just btw the spammer is some nigger from here hapase spamming the "hapas are superior" forced meme.

Well he is not from here even if he sometimes posts here. Judging by the way he throws around the word "cancer" he is from some hapa subreddit possibly even Eurasian Tiger himself.

Nanonymous No.9087 [D] >>9090

>>9082
The spammer is definitely Hapase. There have been a small number of posts here arguing in favor of Hapa Supremacy, and as we all know, everyone posting here is Hapase.
I think Hapase is spamming pigchan while implementing anti-spam measures here. For example Hapase implemented some new anti-spam system today even though we haven't had a spammer in months.

Nanonymous No.9090 [D]

>>9087
indeed; chode mischly has never been subtle.

Nanonymous No.9108 [D]

>>8839
we're still here but lurking more.

Nanonymous No.9113 [D] >>9159

>>9053
I already pointed out that it's a non-issue for nanochan because hakase has shown no interest in implementing the kind of system I'm talking about. So you're not exactly contributing anything new to the thread, faggot.

I was posting because I was surprised that the kind of people using a v3 hidden-service-only IB like nanochan were so vastly ignorant. Like I said, stuck in the 90s. But the fact that the laughable anon above clearly doesn't even understand what machine learning is and seriously uses the stale "botnet hardware" meme (which he thinks has something to do with "breaking away from the clearnet") tells me that this cancer of ignorance is inoperable.
>>9082
>hakase would most likely not
Once again, hakase has shown no interest in this. I'm not talking about hakase, I'm talking about the future.
>imageboard culture
"Imageboard culture" has been dying for a decade, and the changes moot made to 4chan in preparation for its sale (not just the GG bans) and Fredrick Brennan's death at the snouts of hungry pigs and the xfer of pigchan to Jimbo were the last two nails in the coffin. I'm talking about trying to preserve as much of the spirit of imageboards as possible moving forward into a very different environment than the one that existed in the early-mid 2000s when English-language IBs first became a thing. I believe that spirit will only be able to survive on darknets, and it's necessary to think about stopping bad actors in that kind of environment, where you don't have the traditional tools (IP bans, etc.) available.
>hakase hosts nanochan off
Once again, I'm not talking about nanochan, as I've said several times now.
>what happens if
Unlikely, given the rate at which hs-only IBs that don't allow CP will get new users. In the unlikely event that it happens, you provide a mechanism for a user to protest the token suspension.



Nanonymous No.9127 [D]

That pigchan hapa spammer has caused ALL of the top 10 pigchan boards to ban Torposting.
That spammer has posted here recently, yet Nanochan is not spammed. Why is that?

Nanonymous No.9129 [D] >>9130

Isn't Code Monkey a Hapa?

Nanonymous No.9130 [D]

>>9129
Yes, he is.

Nanonymous No.9159 [D] >>9195 >>9254

>>9113
>But the fact that the laughable anon above clearly doesn't even understand what machine learning is
Any learning is essentially putting some teachable actor through the reward system.
And I claim that no machine learning bullshit will reach levels of awareness required to operate an autoban system for an imageboard-like site with reasonable losses in a foreseeable future, like, of 10 years at least. Especially if we assume that no user fingerprinting is done.
You are probably fine with a bit of cutting down the community, I get that much.
>"botnet hardware" meme
It's not a meme you dipshit, but whatever, it may not matter much.
The thing is that the only consumer hardware being able to solve your tokens in reasonable time will be new hardware from Intel, AMD and Nvidia, period. Apart from being a botnet, it will raise an entry barrier, and raising the barrier isn't what imageboard culture is about at all.
>I'm talking about the future.
Yaknow, the captcha as an id method will do just fine, if we don't run into an "unlikely event" when we piss off somebody with good knowledge about computer vision systems.
>In the unlikely event that it happens, you provide a mechanism for a user to protest the token suspension.
That sounds more and more bullshit as we learn more about your proposed system.
That shit right there just opens a backdoor into system.
Also I want to add in general: that kind of attack, coordinated correctly, will most likely leave the system DDoS'd as in nobody will be able to post during the attack. This shit right there is just as bad as spam, because it may leave the board unpostable for hours or even days.
What I'm getting at here is the problems with this shit will never end and the only catch-all solution would still be the janny fucking stuck at the monitor cleaning up and banning. And also that you shouldn't assume that malicious fucks will be dumb and that their attack methods would not employ any bullshit you might or might not think about. If you're under a serious attack, it's gonna be nasty.

Nanonymous No.9195 [D] >>9221 >>9254

>>9159
>That shit right there just opens a backdoor into system.
When the spammer was here, I couldn't get the captcha to work. I had to email hakase about it. Ooh, fucking backdoor to the captcha system!
>It's not a meme
Your understanding of the problems with modern Intel and AMD processors is absolutely at the level of mere memery. You're the kind of person the "It's fucking botnet!" banner back on 8/tech/ was made to mock.
>that kind of attack, coordinated correctly, will most likely leave the system DDoS'd as in nobody will be able to post during the attack. This shit right there is just as bad as spam, because it may leave the board unpostable for hours or even days.
You don't even understand what we're talking about. It has zero effect on people whose tokens aren't brand new. Posting for all of the board's existing users would go on as normal. The only people caught up by the anti-spam system would be brand-new users, and that problem can be mitigated.

Nanonymous No.9221 [D] >>9282

>>9195
>When the spammer was here, I couldn't get the captcha to work. I had to email hakase about it. Ooh, fucking backdoor to the captcha system!
Unrelated.
Also if Hakase doesn't respond immediately, you're shit out of luck.
>Your understanding of the problems with modern Intel and AMD processors is absolutely at the level of mere memery.
Their hardware is actually really bad and unsafe, but it is pretty much the fastest on the market, for the PC market anyway.
And nice job not replying to the other issue.
>You don't even understand what we're talking about. It has zero effect on people whose tokens aren't brand new.
I understood that new tokens had to be generated for every new post.
If not, that shit is just equivalent to the required registration and it goes straight into the garbage bin, as far as we want to preserve that imageboard spirit.
And that changes a lot. If we register accounts that way, I might want to use it if I can have a fair lot of meaningful conversations at a place setup like that.

Also nice job sageing as downvoting, fagit.

Nanonymous No.9254 [D] >>9282

>>9159
>AI
To add onto your post, where the fuck should one even get the dataset? Post deletions? By who? 4cuck/pigchan mods? How can you even promise that the AI won't go full retard? Just take a look at youtube's algoritm. If you think mods following rules to a t are bad, imagine an AI doing this instantly, 24/7.
>>9195
>last sentence
But within that period, anyone looking to use a completely new token (for privacy reasons), lost their original token, or just plain new users would not be able to post at all. If some trivial spam during hakase's downtime would be enough to trigger such a fallout, then it'd already be worth it.
And don't give me the muh not only nanochan argument, even if there were enough mods online around the clock, the entire strategy of auto denying tokens would not be needed anyway.
And to reiterate my reason for why this is absolutely retarded, it completely destroys the anonymity aspect tor provides, and any website that implements such a system only raises a lot of questions about its trustworthiness.

Nanonymous No.9282 [D] >>9285 >>9410

>>9221
No, you misunderstood that a new token has to be generated for each post.
I have saged every post I've made in this thread because it's a shit thread that doesn't need to be bumped, faggot.
>>9254
Brainlet.

Nanonymous No.9285 [D]

>>9282
> I have saged every post I've made in this thread because it's a shit thread that doesn't need to be bumped, faggot.
Why did you start a conversation and why do you keep replying then? Check your brains out, they're fucking broken.

Nanonymous No.9359 [D] >>9363

>>8900
There are multiple things about this which make me think a /pol/ack typed it up so that morons like you would spread it around and stir up hate against Jews.

Nanonymous No.9363 [D][U][F] >>9521
File: 4c09ea318fea27440c5f279d151bd3b8669b9198462bdd1944bebaaca3dd2d49.jpg (dl) (48.61 KiB)

>>9359
Yep, looks like fake crap typed out by a larper to lend credence to his NEETsock beliefs.

Nanonymous No.9410 [D] >>9504

>>9282
>finally given up on his shitty idea and resumes shitposting

Nanonymous No.9504 [D] >>9516

>>9410
It's a great idea, and I haven't given up on it, just decided to stop casting pearls before swine.

Nanonymous No.9516 [D] >>9619

>>9504
What you are essentially proposing is making an actual account on an imageboard, and making it a requirement for posting. And while the former may be OK in general (although questionable on a Tor board), the latter just puts the whole idea into dumpster.
So, really, I don't even know why you're here. You're either a glownigger or a retard. Get the fuck out.

Nanonymous No.9517 [D]

I left an imageboard once because of gay tokens.

Nanonymous No.9521 [D] >>9523

>>9363
>Yep, looks like fake crap typed out by a larper to lend credence to his NEETsock beliefs.

Eurasian tiger samefagging and whining about /pol/ in every thread even when /pol/ is not mentioned in any way.

Nanonymous No.9523 [D][U][F] >>9525
File: dad6ead45c6fd193d7da870197ea05ea4522a76b0d8d5ab4d4e3fbce22d215e2.png (dl) (282.67 KiB)

>>9521
There's nothing wrong with calling out (((/pol/))), even if it's coming from hapashit spammer. They crosspost and just like you, redditor, are cancer.
Reminder; starve the beast, don't reply to /pol/, let them stay on their containment board. They'll stop spilling their shit all over eventually.

Nanonymous No.9525 [D] >>9565

>>9523
Shills sure are here.
Fuck off, retard.

Nanonymous No.9565 [D] >>9571

>>9525
>everyone I don't like is a Shill(TM)
You just perfectly confirmed his beliefs, moron.
Calling literally everyone you don't like a "shill" or a "jew" is absolute pig-wig behavior. It is a demoralized white people's strategy to discredit everything that goes against their beliefs.
>there's this statement X that I saw online...
<BUT THAT MUST BE PUBLISHED BY JEWISH SHILLS AND NOT BY ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS SO IT'S NOT VALID AND I DON'T EVEN NEED TO TRY AND DISCREDIT IT.
You fags need to understand that whenever jews come up you need to individually, definitively discredit a number (doesn't have to be all) of their lies and publish this fact to the world. Not just larp about muh gas le joze on pigchan.
what's a white people equivalent of "oy vey" btw

Nanonymous No.9571 [D] >>9575

>>9565
>oh shit

Nanonymous No.9575 [D][U][F]
File: eb206cf0c3025d3a8e49a7098265439dd67c9bec5356d8f06a66d430b7f15b93.png (dl) (735.43 KiB)

>>9571
lol some jap can fix up the bad japanese
hapase get in here

Nanonymous No.9619 [D] >>9634

>>9516
>what are zero-knowledge proofs?

Nanonymous No.9634 [D]

>>9619
Yeah, what are they?
They are identity proofs here, exactly the stuff that ruins anonymity.
In other words, unless I drop my identity every fucking post, I am going to be tracked by Hapase. And then yadda-yadda, even if Hapase isn't a glownigger, glowies can kick her door in hypothetically. It may sound paranoid but hey, it's not Hapase we are talking about, but Tor shit in general, right?
Though provided the admin and the system can be trusted, it may be made less annoying, but if your proposal includes obligatory tracking, because Hapase wouldn't be able to ban tokens without some sort of storage, then we have a problem. If only the automated system bans spammers, then we have a different problem (aforementioned system DDoS, for one).
The point I'm making here is your method will be fundamentally less anonymous, and shouldn't be employed if a simpler and more anonymous solution works. Or, if admin is trusted and the system is not compromised, it doesn't provide that much protection from malicious agents. Like, about just as much as a well-implemented captcha, and captcha is under a minute to solve, unless it's that google abomination.

Anyway, it's not really productive to talk about it unless you reveal the whole thing you have in mind. Tokens and zero-knowledge are already two different moving parts essentially, and even if you have the right idea, without actual code implementation it's all a moot point, because implementing a complicated new cryptosystem is far from trivial. You didn't even tell if it's going to be browser-based or not.

Nanonymous No.9656 [D]

>>boohoo I am a pessimist who can't enjoy a good thing while it lasts

Nanonymous No.9657 [D]

>>8838