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

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

Okay, I read that damn paper. Here is my thought. Image file attached.


On 11/19/05, Arrakis Tor <arrakistor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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=-
> >
> >
> >

Attachment: trust.gif
Description: GIF image