Re: Hey guys, here is another (great?) idea

[Arrakis Tor <arrakistor@xxxxxxxxx>]

Okay. So I take it y'all like the idea.

Matt, as default, I think we should make the extension just implement
man in the middle. You can turn on and off anonymity, and you can also
turn on and off exit node. You can turn on/off really anything.

But this would certainly bring Tor to a whole new level.

Alright, I'm done talking about it's possibilities.

How would it affect the Tor network to suddenly have 500,000 man in
the middle servers pop up? Dir servers would clog? Does this mean we
need a new protocol for directory sending, or a new protocol for
directory structure whatever? So now we need to read that paper that
was posted, and figure out why we can't use a few trusted servers to
propagate network directories and virtual regions. And at the same
time we need to get busy writing an XPI to run tor, whatever version
we decide to stick in.

Who can do this? Surely there must be some brilliant programmers out
there who can program this XPI in a couple days and cases of Jolt.


Regards,
ST

On 11/19/05, Marc Abel <m-abel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Do we know that popularity isn't the most expedient route to redundancy?
>
>
>
> On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 18:24, Matt Thorne wrote:
> > I can see where requiring bandwidth for bandwidth usage would fail...
> > But I just didn't want to create something that was this rediculusly
> > easy to use w/out some more redundancy on the network. Don't get me
> > wrong, tor is still easy to use, but this is over the top above and
> > beyond easy. people who didn't really need anonymity would still use
> > it. it might even become... "trendy" (gasp)
> >
> > -=Matt=-
>
>
>