[Fwd: BOUNCE or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx: Non-member submission from [Sam Peterson <peabodyenator@xxxxxxxxx>]]

[Andrew Lewman <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sending this along as peabodyenator@xxxxxxxxx isn't subscribed to or-talk.


-------- Original Message --------
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 2:05 PM, emigrant <fromwindowstolinux@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-01-09 at 19:31 +0530, emigrant wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 11:56 -0800, Sam Peterson wrote:
>> > Having read the heated discussion regarding some people's suggestion
>> > on the list to provide an option to reduce the number of hops in a
>> > circuit, I'm curious about something and was wondering if someone
>> > smarter than I could enlighten me.
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>>
>> May i know why people need to reduce the number of hosts?
>> i prefer it be increased instead.
>>
>
> i meant to say hops (not hosts) sorry.

I don't wish to decrease the number of hops, but recently, some people
have posted to the list saying they would like to have the option of
decreasing the number of hops in a circuit to decrease latency and
improve performance.

Reading these discussions got me thinking about why three hops are
used instead of two.

I now see that the main reason for using three hops is that it gives
plausible deniability to exit nodes and entry nodes (not sure if
that's the right term, but what I mean is that node operators can be
confident that even if their machines are seized, no useful
information will be present on them).  Certainly this is very
important, especially from a legal point of view.


Thanks to all who responded.
-- 
Sam Peterson
peabody@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
peabodyenator@xxxxxxxxx
***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
unsubscribe or-talk    in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/