Mordikan

So that’s not actually true with DNS exactly.

State actors can and have compelled ISPs to redirect DNS traffic. The most notable case I can remember is Turkey assuming control over Google’s anycast address (8.8.8.8) via BGP hijacking to enforce Twitter bans (that was in 2014).

If we are talking DoT/DoH, then BGP hijacking has a more limited impact as there is encryption involved there, but it still requires IP routing the same as anything else, so modifying BGP routes would be effective if the goal was to break non-compliant DNS providers.

To be fair, the move to Linux has nothing to do with user rights. That is strictly a move to become less reliant on the US as the US has become increasingly unstable.

They have more than one product. They provide anti-cheat as well as anti-tamper

“Rules for thee, not for me”

The problem with religious texts is they are so badly written that essentially anything you want to do is permissible. Look at a comment you made:

The basics argument is taking anything from anyone without their consent is morally wrong and haram.

Who did take from? You couldn’t have taken a game from a developer/publisher if its pirated. You took it from a bittorrent seeder. Did they provide consent? Yes, they were seeding it to you.

If I tell you a joke that I heard from someone who heard it from someone, etc. did I steal the joke? At what iteration of copying something does it stop being theft? Is it theft to begin with to make a copy?

What does Lemmy (an open community) have to do with privacy? What does privacy have to do with piracy?

1. If X was not available to pirate, would you pay for it?
2. If you would not have paid for X, does pirating X cause any actual loss to its owner? If you would not have paid for it either way (even if that were the only option) and you haven’t caused them a loss of revenue by pirating it, did you impact the creator at all?

The counter to this is always that just because someone wouldn’t pay doesn’t mean the creator’s work has no value. To that I would yes that is completely true. The creator’s work has value, but maybe not monetary value. You can’t always conflate value to money (ex. FOSS, canonical sci-fi lore, protest symbols, etc).

There is also a morality component used against my argument that would say I’m ignoring the intent, consent, and ownership the creator has. Its usually worded that I’m using outcome-based morality and that the ends always justifies the means by that logic. But I pay for X, not for access to use X. If the creator can opt without my consent to remove X from me, I’m not longer obligated to follow that moral constraint. Morality is a two-way street.

SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN means incorrect SAN information, proxying, or DNS manipulation is occurring. You could compare what you see in the browser and what you see via something like: $ openssl s_client -showcerts -connect cs.rin.ru:443

You could also check the DNS resolution and traceroute to see how you are getting there to confirm if DNS is being effected or you are being proxied: $ dig cs.rin.ru @127.0.0.1 A $ mtr cs.rin.ru

Yes, that is correct. As I said, there is probably already a docker image out there for the provider you go with.

Pretty sure that is just a discrepancy between when a site has last checked client announcements from the tracker and when what the tracker currently shows. As of 2025, TPB for example links to 3.2 million torrents. Assuming client announcements were set to an average 1hr interval, that would require TPB to make 76.8 million checks every day for announcement updates.

So, I could see sites not maintaining accurate seeder/leecher data.

The only real constraint here is VPN port forwarding. You would need a VPN provider that supports that in order to hit DHT swarms. So, just make sure the provider has that.

As for kill switching, run the VPN and torrent client through docker. There is probably already a docker image out there that does that depending on what provider you go with. Essentially what you’d be doing is sandboxing your torrent client and then only passing in the VPN interface via docker network to that client. If the VPN tunnel goes down there is no other egress point off the network segment and zero chance for traffic using a different interface.

I don’t trust them, but based on some assumptions. They are statically less likely to be taken down. That cannot be argued, but because of strictly enforced rules, most (at least the ones I’ve seen) do not allow VPN IP addresses to be registered. The issue there is the user has a forced increase in reliance on the site operator to maintain pseudo-anonymity.

The fact you were able to buy in without any proof of who you are or that I’ve encountered people just giving away invites to strangers, would suggest at least some of these trackers are not trustworthy. What protects those communities is their insular nature. Once that’s circumvented, its essentially just the same as a public tracker.

Asking for evidence wasn’t the issue, believing that the truth relies solely upon a discussion providing such evidence is.

Again, post your evidence or didn’t happen. Literally everything after that meaningless without that. The discussion is over because you can’t provide that as you are wrong. End.

Unrelated, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So, I’m not allowed to ask you for proof of your statement? And if its unrelated, then why did you post it? Its unrelated. Also, you’re saying you have an absence of evidence, ergo you have no evidence. Having no evidence does not qualify as evidence.

Removing an identifier that is used. (1/100 = matters, “isn’t really used” != unused). This contradicts your other statements:

Just because an identifier exists doesn’t mean it is used. BidRequest.imp[i].tagid exists, but advertisers don’t use it. I think you are confusing having an option with something being mandatory.

And Tor nodes are not the same thing as VPN multi-hop. If you think that they are, wow! VPN multi-hop is you connecting to a provider’s server that connects to another one of the provider’s server then out. It’s all the provider’s network.

And again, if you connected your Firefox browser to Tor, we could still track you. You’d get cookied or localStorage() tracked. When you disconnect from Tor, that stuff is still present in your browser. Almost like the number of hops you take or the IP address used doesn’t seem to really matter, huh?

EDIT: I just realized you think that Tor is built using multi-hop VPN. Its a real life Dunning-Kruger effect! I’ve never encountered this. You are going to do something really stupid and end up in prison.

I bet they spent more time working on making a cool sounding acronym than they did actually writing the bill. If this actually passed, it would do nothing except encourage people to use an out of geo VPN, I2P, or non-US DNS server.

Threat models differ. More hops can, from direct personal experience, make the difference in tracking

Evidence, or it isn’t true.

I’m sorry, that isn’t evidence.

I’m sorry, but that isn’t evidence.

You’re trying to argue without evidence (like I had provided). To summarize these exchange so far its:

1. You giving some marketing crap you read from a VPN provider site on their multi-hop service.
2. Someone pointing out that it is incorrect with evidence.
3. You get mad and basically come back with “Nuh-uh!”

Is there some evidence you’d like to provide or is it going to be another “nuh-uh!”?

What specifically about multi-hop makes you think it improves your security? Be specific. What is your “direct personal experience”?