Re: [tor-dev] Freenet + Onioncat: Is the traffic welcome?

[konstant@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

> On 6/22/16, konstant@xxxxxxxxxxxx <konstant@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I posted steps on how to connect Freenet nodes over Onioncat and
>> Garlicat
>> for Tor/I2P. I am looking to scale it into an Opennet inside Tor with a
>> lot of peers:
>>
>> https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/2016-June/039056.html
>> https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/2016-June/039059.html
>
> Cool.
>
> You may want to review two recent threads regarding
> # bittorrent
> https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2016-June/041355.html
> # onioncat
> https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2016-April/010847.html
>
> (Some portion of these threads are on tor-talk, tor-dev, cypherpunks,
> etc so you'll need to search those for full context.
> They may span multiple months so you'll have to dig those out.
> And note that torproject's archives destroy useful things like
> cc, attachments, crypto sigs. Cypherpunks is intact.)
>
>> Is the extra traffic desirable in Tor? Reading asn's comment, I was
>> under
>> the impression that you are interested in adding higher latency traffic
>> such as Freenet or mixnets for better anonymity:
>> https://blog.torproject.org/blog/crowdfunding-future-hidden-services
>
> From the operations and UX side, as opposed to theory and
> design side...
>
> Some [officials] within torproject will decry traffic, and have even
> gone so far as to suggest they'll deploy coded countermeasures
> (which since the traffic is anonymous, and the code is opensource,
> doesn't work and kills someone else's good as well). In the end,
> just like video on clearnet, users and their traffic will come, and
> utilize whatever capacity and features they can, nothing you can
> do about it.

I want to be clear about a couple of things. I am not looking to defy the
wishes of Tor developers and relay contributors. I hope to get their views
on the matter. Should they explicitly refuse, I will look at I2P.

Second, my idea does not touch Exit bandwidth at all. We will only deploy
hidden services.

>
> A more qualified thought... I find ongoing intentional exclusive
> use of exits so people can basically get their trivial entertainment
> LOL's using filesharing apps such as bittorrent (or any other use that
> is known to tax networks)... to be rather immature to unethical.
>
> *snip*

+1

Wasting resources is abusive. However, comparing bittorrent traffic to
Freenet doesn't do it justice. Freenet is used by dissidents for freedom
of speech and publishing small static files like blogs, not to share gigs
of media files.

>
>> Using both projects in tandem can finally realize the vision of
>> FreeHaven.
>> You are the best at firewall circumvention, performance and accessing
>> the
>> web, Freenet supplies users with censorship resistant publishing and p2p
>> services. There is a HotPETs 16 paper co-authored by George Danezis on
>> renewing interest in anonymous storage networks:
>>
>> http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/M.Isaakidis/p/isaakidis-p2pstorageservices-hotpets16.pdf
>
> I agree that linking the various overlays, features, services, and users
> together is generally a good thing. I tend to argue IPv6 for that since
> so many of todays apps and users speak that. However there's certainly
> other shims, proxies, and addressing stacks people can dream and
> code up, particularly for asynchronous / non-real-time messaging and
> file like storage services.
>
> Users also need to research and think clearly about any security
> and privacy impact using such links may have on them.
> _______________________________________________
> tor-dev mailing list
> tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
>


_______________________________________________
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev