On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 01:39:14AM +0600, Vlad SATtva Miller wrote: > On 05.03.05 01:22, clifnor@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Some people are almost always greedy > > Some people are sometimes greedy > > No one is NEVER greedy > > And some just using GPRS and other low-bandwidth connection (mobile, > especially with per Mb payment) prohibiting them to pass others' > traffic. In tit-for-tat scenario all those people will have to abandon > Tor network at all. As has been mentioned, such a system assume a lower bound of service that servers provide to everybody. That way, low-bandwidth users, or users who can't run Tor nodes, still get some service. (More users will help provide more anonymity against many adversaries, after all. True, they'd get bad bandwidth --- but low-bandwidth users don't need much bandwidth, and the choice may be between either creating incentives for server operators by providing worse-but-existent service to non-servers, or having too few servers, so nobody gets anonymity.) Of course, this isn't tit-for-tat anymore (at least, not the tit-for- tat that Rapoport came up with and Axelrod helped investigate). In straight tit-for-tat, you respond with exactly the behavior you saw in the round immediately before the present round. I think that most people who are using the term here mean it in some more vague and extended sense. (i.e., 'Y'know, like what Bittorrent does, or something, except localized, and with bandwidth relayed instead of chunks uploaded, but quantized somehow, and not broadcast, and...') For more info, you might want to see the "Challenged" paper linked to in my last email. Yours, -- Nick Mathewson
Attachment:
pgpTlgh7C4szG.pgp
Description: PGP signature