Re: [tor-relays] Help the Tor Project by running a fast unpublished bridge

["Sebastian G. <bastik.tor>" <bastik.tor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Roger Dingledine:

Hi Roger,

> We're in an interesting situation here, where we can use their bridge
> funding for other more important things if we don't spent it all on
> bridges. So maybe the subject should have been the more counterintuitive
> "Help fund Tor bundle usability by running a fast unpublished bridge".
> 
> Another option would be to give it to Moritz et al at torservers.net
> so they can run more fast exits -- at which point Moritz might end up
> sending a similar mail saying "Help us run more exit relays by running
> a fast unpublished bridge".
> 
> Now that I think about it, maybe the best way to phrase it would be as
> a matching donation: "Run a fast unpublished bridge with 2 IP addresses,
> and we have a funder who will match your donation by giving $200-300/mo
> to Tor." That's the reasoning that led me to say it's a great way to
> contribute to Tor if you can't run a fast relay yourself.

Sounds all plausible to me.

> Another model I've been pondering is to offer people some funding to
> run a fast *non*-exit relay along with a pair of extra IP addresses for
> these unpublished bridges. But on the theory that exits are more scarce
> than non-exits (and I don't want to muddy the current exit experiment
> with even more money), I figured it would be better to separate the roles.

Understandable.

> This discussion really goes back to a simple question: is it better to
> use our funding for more design and development, or for strengthening
> the network? For exit relays, I think choosing "strengthen the network"
> is a great and worthwhile experiment.

I agree on the exits. Better design and more development could be
beneficial to Tor.

> But for bridges, since the current
> Tor transport and current bridge distribution strategies are not great,

In the long run you are right. New fast bridges *might* improve the
situation for censored users, but that won't last very long.

> I think it's better to use funding for better designs and better code.

Yes, that's much better over time.

> I should note that I actually encouraged VoA to want unpublished bridges:
> if we set up fast bridges and published them via bridges.torproject.org
> today, they'd get blocked quickly in China.

They have fixed IP addresses which would result in permanently blocked
bridges. I wonder how good the manual bridge distribution is.

When VoA is fine with spending their money for other stuff as long as
their goal is achieved it's reasonable.

> I'm especially hoping to hear from volunteers for whom setting up a few
> extra bridges is basically free -- for example, those already running
> fast non-exit relays who have a few more IP addresses nearby. This is
> also a nice way for students at universities to get involved if they're
> not ready to run a fast public relay quite yet.

That would be beneficial to Tor.

> I hope that helps to explain.

For me it was helpful. I understood the goal in the first place, but was
a little concerned. After all I guess spending money for design and code
is more helpful than bridges for anyone.

> Sorry for exposing the internals of running
> a non-profit. But I think transparency is especially important here. :)

I don't know why you feel sorry. Transparency is important for
non-profit, at least for most I guess.

Sebastian


_______________________________________________
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays