Re: [tor-talk] Default clients to be non-exit relay LibTech x

[Griffin Boyce <griffinboyce@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 08/27/2013 07:29 PM, Percy Alpha wrote:
> There're few problems with ISP when running non-exit relay. Users in
> moderately censored areas can act as non-exit relay without causing problem
> to the circuit. So why doesn't Tor default to non-exit relay?  Users with
> problems(e.g crappy hardware, ISP fireware) can manually change it to
> client only to improve performance/trouble shooting.
  Honestly, I suspect that if the 500k-900k users that Tor has every day
became middle nodes or bridges, it would probably overload the network.
Not that directory authorities couldn't handle it (though sometimes I
wonder), but then each end-user would have to download a far larger list
of relays before using Tor.  For someone using a bridge to connect, the
latency could reach Pyongyang levels :P  Theoretically, the directory
authority could serve up a set of a thousand random nodes, and then the
client software could select a random set to use initially.

  It's an interesting architecture problem.

  Beyond that though, geography is problematic.  How does the network
restrict nodes coming from hostile geographic areas, without notifying
the authorities "Hey, this person is trying to help others bypass
censorship" ? 

  Maybe an intermediate step would be to offer two browser bundles for
download -- one configured to be a bridge or middle-hop, and one that is
just a client.

  What are your thoughts on it?

~Griffin

-- 
"Cypherpunks write code not flame wars." --Jurre van Bergen
#Foucault / PGP: 0xAE792C97 / OTR: saint@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

My posts, while frequently amusing, are not representative of the thoughts of my employer. 

-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsusbscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk