[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: What can see a server of a Bittorent when I contact with it through Tor?

>> you have to have every bittorrent client in the swarm ALSO running
>> a location hidden service
> Correct.  All users and trackers would have to have a .onion address.

> > I highly doubt any bittorrent client yet supports operating in this
> > manner.
> I have both a torrent tracker and client setup to do this.  I wrote a UPNP
> client to help setup end-user's as routers for the network too. I even
> bought a domain name just for this. It's been tested and works quite well.

Why is a domain needed? Unless it's for documentation/community which
would be better housed in onionspace anyways. Bittorrent can be completely
run in onionspace, today, NO exit facilities are required. Sure, onionspace is
all point2point... no layer2, broadcast, multicast or routing... but
typical user
apps don't need that anyways.

> So why haven't I released this?  Well, I was asked nicely by one of the Tor
> author's NOT to do this due to fears that the Tor network would not be able
> to handle the amount of traffic torrent users would bring.  Out of respect,
> I did what was asked of me and did not release these to the public.

What is certain is that someone will do it someday, with or without
Torproject's nod. All it takes is documentation regarding assembling
the already existing opensource tools. Some people I've talked with are
more than tempted to do it. Only reason not is simply because they're
on other projects at the moment.

> This is a hot topic, with good arguments on both sides.  However, I feel
> that until someone launches such a service, we will not know which way it
> would go.  Perhaps we need to branch off a new Tor network that is used more
> exclusively for hidden services, in hopes of encouraging people to run a
> router (non-exits only) without the risk of getting harassed because of
> "abuse" complaints.

Why branch when scaling may be more useful and secure? Why not
ship clients that provide a minimum bandwidth non-exit relay by default?
I seriously doubt that's going to get anyone jailed or kicked. And it's
not like you can't stick an install popup in there that frames it right:
'the client provides bw to the net by default. it's safe because all
traffic through your box is encrypted and onioned. yet if you are not
permitted to run a network service or don't want to be known as providing
bw, clicky here to turn it off'.

At least that way when the masses figure out how to assemble the
aforesaid tools, the TorNet will have bandwidth that grows as more
join. Even if that growth isn't enough to cover them, it's still something.
Because right now, every new user is a pure drain on TorNet, and that's
a bad situation to be in. Even if it happens to be self limiting as a side
effect :-)
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
unsubscribe or-talk    in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/