/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>9789246
>If they came out and said everything is a security, that'd do much more damage than a few scammers.

This is true, i thought they were trying to protect us.

White Knights

>>9789246
they'd ruin crypto to save banking and governments

who cares when dexes with erc20 support are ready
traden whatever you want

>>9789302
Is crypto really a threat to them?

>>9789421
Absolutely not. The only thing they truly oppose are private ledger currencies. They'll ban them all from exchanges in the not-too-distant future. Screen cap this to show the newfags and wojaks in 5-10 years.

>>9789421
not right now.

>>9789449
i can set up an exchange in about 2 weeks and guarantee you the us gov can't ban shit here. it's unfeasible. let alone distributed exchanges soon to be popping up like shrooms. crypto knows no geographic boundaries. the entire idea of containing this in any way is delusional.

>>9789492
>>9789416
Its not that banning them is the issue as that's easy to get around, it's that the prices would plummet to unimaginable depths as fast as Bitconnect. Every coin would do this.

>>9789492
Right, just like they weren't able to crack down on P2P file sharing. It's not going to be just the US, anon. It's going to be a multi-national effort against terrorism, drug trade, and human trafficking. If you don't see this coming, you should probably look in the mirror next time you call someone "delusional".

I don't care how you set up your exchange, I can block it on our network at work. If you don't think governments are capable of the same, you're just plain ignorant.

>>9789246
It's just FUD. Only thing the SEC can do is go after US based companies that are selling tokens to US residents. It's not illegal to own a security as a non accredited investor. It's illegal to sell securities to non accredited investors.
Absolute worst case scenario for us non accredited burgers is if we are subject to Title III of the JOBS Act and can only cash out our holdings after a year.

>>9789533
i still torrent everything

>>9789533
You know what a VPN is right?

The exact behavior you should expect from a bureaucracy when faced with changes in the world around them. Schemeing to protect their influence for as long as possible. Each Security will be subjected to a long drawn out process, all the while pushing for added powers to enable their quest to protect investors. SEC racket for ever!

>>9789583
>>9789583
Who the fuck comes up with these rules

>>9789606
You know what SSL packet inspection is right?

>>9789645
you know that the NSA doesn't need to inspect anything an can decrypt SSL with already rite?

>>9789640
Jew-owned politicians

>>9789645
Dude, you seriously think the US is capable building an effective firewall around this shit? Hasn't worked out for any other country that's tried before.

>>9789666
Obviously. What I'm saying is its trivial for a government to inspect SSL traffic and determine if its protocols used by VPN service or typical Web browsing traffic. It can be completely automated extremely easily using a simplistic machine learning algorithm.

>>9789702
US government is a hydra, and not all heads play together. SEC is not capable of governing this shit.

>>9789533
>I can block it on our network at work
sure you can block https to cloudflare there will not be a revolt at all.

>>9789680
Yes. I'm absolutely certain that they are capable of shutting down all foreign VPNs as it stands today.

>>9789645
>You know what SSL packet inspection is right?
you know what channel saturation is right?

>>9789730
If I want to block all traffic using VPN service protocols nobody would even know except for people using VPNs to access external networks.

>>9789746
>channel saturation
Absolutely irrelevant. Please go learn more about how VPN tunnels are negotiated.

>>9789737
it's not feasible worst case all vpn traffic can be obscured as perfectly legal commercial https requests with minimal effort.

>>9789737
enter IPSX

>>9789749
dude i was talking about simple web requests to cloudflare load balancers. that's all you gonna see.

>>9789680
Yes

>>9789776
>that's all you're going to see
No, it's not. I'm going to see the deets on every handshake made. You initial GET request may go to a cloud flare load balancer, but at some point the handshake has to happen, and that's where you're caught.

>>9789759
rofl i have coded a few darknets in my time you gonna talk to me about this crap? i was even involved in WASTE development which was explicitly coded to resist any sort of traffic analyzing or protocol detection attempt.

>>9789802
>muh security through obfuscation
Enjoy implementation of whitelists. The days of a free and open Internet are coming to a swift end and you know it.

>>9789795
nah all you gonna see is one very long https request. like downloading a large file or something.

>>9789737
We both know that's not going to happen. You're arguing whether or not they are capable on a technical level...what I'm saying is they are not capable on a bureaucratic level.

>>9789823
you are getting desperate but sure don't whitelist cloudflare or microsoft azure ips! see what happens!

>>9789825
I strip every SSL packet in-line before it exits my network. How am I not going to see your handshake?

>>9789831
Correct. It's technically possible. I understand your perspective but I also know that nothing motivates governments more than securing tax money.

>>9789845
I can already see what people are accessing on AWS and other cloud providers. What don't you understand about in-line packet inspection?

>>9789831
it's a losing battle on the technical side also but that's just my professional opinion. traffic obfuscation is not hard. an exchange needs minimal amount of traffic to operate.

and vpns are actually very important to corporate security. it would be a bloody revolt if they tried to fuck with it.

>>9789868
>How am I not going to see your handshake?
you can see it you just won't recognize it. it will be like hundreds of other businesses https handshakes.

>>9789876
nigga you can't see shit that's going on an encrypted channel.

>>9789876
If it comes from a vpn don’t you need the key to know from who its coming from?

>>9789896
Yeah show me an example of this magic you speak of. Unless they are using an unknown protocol, in which case they are already blocked.

>>9789601
Do you value your freedom?

>>9789916
>>9789916
No it'll never get that far. As soon as I see a handshake for any of the known VPN protocols the connectin is blocked. We have 0 business cases which require an outward VPN connection. I kill them all.

>>9789911
The connection is dead before the keys are exchanged. Never once have I claimed to be able to inspect an established tunnel.

>>9789925
no they will use https. an application puts out an https request one of billions on a larger network to a load balancing server which will proxy it over https to a server which will embed comm stream of propertiary protocol in the https datastream. it's not magic or anything. you will see the handshake with say cloudflare or any other provider and that's it. you won't see what resource is accessed what site serves the request nothing.

>>9789977
you can't do that you would kill half the internet.

>>9789963
Im not sure i understand, if it comes from vpn using TLS/SSL you still block it? What if it is a normal request

>>9789981
I can still see the handshakes made by any machine in my network. Whether or not the destination is obfuscated by proxy is irrelevant.

>>9789991
SSL/TLS vpn handshakes are different than say a normal HTTPS login on a website. It's easily distinguishable assuming you can strip the SSL in line, which we do here.

>>9789993
but the proxy in this case is a completely legit proxy that hundred thousands of sites use. that's the difference. you can't block it. if i really want i can use googles search engine as a proxy nigga. you can't fucking win this battle.

>>9790023
Like man in the midde?

>>9790029
I don't have to block AWS as a whole. Are you not reading what I'm saying? I simply drop the connection and serve the user a Web page telling them why they were blocked and that their actions are logged.

>>9790043
Yes, I'm the MITM.

IS IT FUD OR NOT, STOP DERAILING IT WITH MOTHER FUCKING VPNS AND SHIIEETTT.

>>9790088
It's FUD. But private ledger coins are going to suffer mortal wounds over the next decade.

>>9790072
and i'm saying you can't really pull that out without hurting a thousand other service. so long there is a server you can't block by ip because it provides a legit service through https it can act as a proxy with noone being the wiser.

>>9790110
Legit services wouldnt be using VPN protocol handshakes and they go through just fine.

>>9790087
Scary stuff.

>>9790122
My job is to protect our data, and I'm damn good at it. Not a single breach or malware event since I came on and got my policies implemented 6 years ago.

>>9790154
Is it difficult to learn how to analyze packets and detect mitm? I can see how its a good thing, some AV use mitm but the certificates can be stolen easily

>>9789492
are there ways around it? of course. use a VPN buy on a dex, etc. the point is privacy coin prices are going to take an 80% haircut and probably stay there because MOST people aren't going to go through the hassle and risk money laundering charges just to buy monero.

>>9790180
Is DPI is a specialized skill? Yes. Difficult? Yes. Not theorhetical astrophysics difficult, but not something I'd trust the average mouth breather to become competent in.

>>9790198
Essentially this. I'm not saying all privacy coins will be eliminated, but they will become so unwieldy and with legal ramifications to the extent of discouraging the vast majority of pepole from using them, and the major exchanges from listing them. Exchanges who do not comply with a restriction could easily be blackholed.

governments dont need to restrict networks to end crypto. if owning crypto got you prison time crypto would no longer be a threat