Re: Reduce hops when privacy level allows to save Tor network bandwidth

[Brian Mearns <bmearns@xxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Erilenz <erilenz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> * on the Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 07:43:01AM -0500, Andrew Lewman wrote:
>
>>> That's fine, as long as you're assuming that people only use Tor when they need
>>> strong anonymity. As soon as you realise that people who don't need strong
>>> anonymity are using it as well, your point fails. Whether or not they *should*
>>> be doing so is irrelevant. The options are:
>>>
>>> 1.) Ignore that they're doing it
>>> 2.) Prevent them from doing it
>>> 3.) Make their impact smaller when they are doing it
>>>
>>> I choos3.
>>
>> You are going to BMW asking them to include features from Ford, because
>> you personally like some features found in Ford trucks.  If only BMW
>> cars would include these features, then you'd buy a BMW and stop
>> complaining about the lack of Ford features.
>
> That is the worse analogy I've ever seen. It's terribly constructed and
> doesn't bare even the slightest resemblance to what is being discussed.
> Please try again. Or don't.
>
>> This is the borderline definition of trolling.
>
> No it's not. I've not done anything which would suggest I was trolling.
> Random claims that somebody is trolling in order to discredit what they're
> saying ... now *that's* trolling.
>
>> Until the research shows less than three hops is as safe as the current
>> three hops, we as the Tor Project are not changing the default number of
>> hops.
>
> Are you suggesting that I said something about changing the default number
> of hops? I explicitly stated the *opposite* of that. Your first language
> is English right?
>
>> If you want simple circumvention without strong anonymity, there
>> are ten thousand or so open proxies in the world, which are free.  If
>> you want strong anonymity, use Tor.  The current research on anonymity
>> networks is conveniently collected for you at
>> http://freehaven.net/anonbib/.
>>
>> Cypherpunks write code.  Feel free to write code so you can screw your
>> own anonymity with the speed and efficiency you claim to want.  Others
>> have already done this; some even got talks at blackhat or defcon for
>> changing a line of code or two.  Google search has your answers.
>
> You keep talking as though it is *me* who wants this capability. For
> myself, I want a 3 hop circuit, but I want more bandwidth available to
> me. In order to get more bandwidth, I want those who *can* use a 2 hop
> circuit to do so.
>
> This is one of those ideal/practical arguments. Idealistically, Tor
> would only have 3 hop circuits and those who want "simple circumvention"
> wouldn't use it. That doesn't make it the practical truth of what is
> happening though.
>
> --
> Erilenz
> ***********************************************************************
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> unsubscribe or-talk    in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/
>

My question is: do you really think it would help? If people are using
Tor inappropriately (meaning they could get what they want with a
simple anonymous proxy), what are the chances they're going to have it
configured appropriately to reduce the bandwidth they use?

Also, is the number of relay's really the limiting factor? It seems to
me that the number of exit-nodes would be a bigger bottle neck, and
cutting down hop counts wouldn't help in this regard.

-Brian

-- 
Feel free to contact me using PGP Encryption:
Key Id: 0x3AA70848
Available from: http://keys.gnupg.net
***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
unsubscribe or-talk    in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/