!!OWdeYcHrBQ ID: 582024 July 2, 2022, 4:57 p.m. No.24110   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4124

Ok so what's going on is it's a different name. It's not Q, so he doesn't want to show us "because it would dox" when if it WERE Q how is that doxing? Is it using a different name for backend or some shit?

 

>>24106

Coverup would need more than a smoking gun, coveruppers would need intervention

EveryoneIsOSS ID: 582024 July 2, 2022, 6:21 p.m. No.24249   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4250 >>4252 >>4254

well there are only 1 code pathway that explains why the tripcode could not have changed. Either custom_tripcode or maybe someone guessed and supplied the new salt,or both. For sure fuckery afoot. There's no way the salt rotated and the trip stay the same

EveryoneIsOSS ID: 582024 July 3, 2022, 12:32 a.m. No.24380   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>24361

Goggling "pearl harbor 100x" yields a site called https://inb4sauce.net/?pages=111 and several feed accumulators, including Paul Furber BDanon and @EWillHelpYou on gab.

EveryoneIsOSS ID: 582024 July 3, 2022, 12:56 a.m. No.24382   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Looks like they run a bot that selectively replies in a thread based on votes from telegram, so they crawl over 4chan and others, maybe?

EveryoneIsOSS ID: 582024 July 3, 2022, 10:06 a.m. No.24420   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>24414

>all TOR posters get a new shared UID per-bread

New policy since the infoleak was discovered and the "2 ids" were a Qpost and Pro-Jim talk and the endless kek had at jim's expense since jim is only one who pro-jim talks.

EveryoneIsOSS ID: 582024 July 3, 2022, 10:13 a.m. No.24421   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4422 >>4424

Namely, here:

>>22401 (pb)

This is why the policy doesn't make sense. There were 24 tor posts in that QR threads, plenty existed before and between those 2 posts, but because Jim fucked up so badly they changed the history from seeing the UID of the tor exit node, you now see .... 1 UID, which would mean ... 1 device ... which would not make sense since TOR does not operate in that way by design.

EveryoneIsOSS ID: 582024 July 3, 2022, 10:45 a.m. No.24430   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4432 >>4440 >>4442 >>4444

>>24424

>1 uid would mean one IP hash

>one IP hash would mean ALL TOR users share a singular IP address?

When shit doesn't make sense and there is evidence it was changed, it means the site admin is directly or by derivation, site admin fucking with you.

 

EXIT NODE doesn't care what IP they give out, because they give EXIT NODE's IP. If they were tunnel'd directly to the server nodes there would be no hash BUT because there IS data (because must save Q post's IP hash, right?) the ruleset no longer makes sense. Instead of knowing how to fix the leak, he DOES know how to overwrite the data. He asked where the infoleak was coming from and was told on truthsocial by qagg that it was the json feeds, and boom, data overwritten.

EveryoneIsOSS ID: 582024 July 3, 2022, 10:50 a.m. No.24432   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>24430

"Ah shit the aggregators already have the UID of the tor exit nodes so now we have to keep that instead of writing all 0's"

EveryoneIsOSS ID: 582024 July 3, 2022, 10:54 a.m. No.24435   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4437

>>24433

Nope. It's not that smart. It just on output uses the first tor node ID it sees, or if the data has been changed, it will use that, or if no tor node, no output.

 

Jim wouldn't throw away data unless he is hoisted on his petard.

EveryoneIsOSS ID: 582024 July 3, 2022, 10:56 a.m. No.24437   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>24435

The fact that an infoleak WAS possible, or now a compromised "first tor node uid seen" PROVES that in the backend he still logs the raw data.

EveryoneIsOSS ID: 582024 July 3, 2022, 11:10 a.m. No.24447   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4456 >>4464

>>24442

TOR nodes are supposed to be all 0's, correct? So that it wasn't was a leak of information which was used to dramatic effect when a QR Faux Q-post went up right after posting pro-Jim ego triggered, as the only 2 posts in the thread with that UID.

 

Discovery of the infoleak happened here: Documented by caps.

>>20662 (pb)

>>20668 (pb)

EveryoneIsOSS ID: 582024 July 3, 2022, 11:23 a.m. No.24458   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4459 >>4465

>>24456

You're overlooking that it didn't happen that way at the very least for the few seconds it took for the screenshotter to notice and take a screenshot and post back to the thread.