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