On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Ian Clarke <i...@trystacks.com> wrote: > I remember years ago people were running BitTorrent over Tor, and the Tor guys > considered this a form of denial-of-service attack on the Tor network, > because it is so bandwidth intensive and bandwidth is a scarce resource given > Tor's > limited number of server nodes. > I think they would have a similar issue with a lot of people running Freenet > over Tor.
I think this issue was regards to the limited number of exit nodes. Bittorrent over tor uses exit nodes. The approach outlined by the original email uses Tor hidden services and doesn't impact the limited exit node bandwidth. A few advantages for using Tor: 1) A lot of people already run it and trust it. 2) A user would never need to disclose their IP address to the Freenet network. 3) It gains the benefit of Tor's pluggable transports to avoid blocking ZeroNet for example uses Tor for anonymity and the ability to act as a server behind a firewall. They use the Tor controller to create ephemeral hidden services on demand. I believe there to be some demand for this in Freenet since the publicity of the ability of some organisations to track the IP address of users requesting specific keys in Freenet. I agree with nextgens however that there are issues related to latency and node backoff. Something built into freenet itself would be great too but I don't think there is the developer availability for it based on the large amount of other work that people want done too. > I don't mean to be discouraging, this is an interesting experiment and worth > trying. It's not discouraging at all - I appreciate the feedback and I do put this into the "I'm interested in experimenting with" basket for me rather than taking developer time to implement at this time. -- http://bluishcoder.co.nz _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
