On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 3:02 PM, grarpamp <grarp...@gmail.com> wrote: > ... > So long as users are covering their bandwidth with giveback [1], I > think it's safe to assume the rest of their overhead is also covered > by the addition of that node to the network.
there's always a catch. ;) > ... > [1] It's already established that in order for your use of Tor > bandwidth to be zero sum (in the Hidden Service <--> Hidden Service > case) you need to give back at least 6x your use. So you will already > be running said relay (for the purpose of bandwidth giveback). > > [2] Isn't there a proposal out there to better handle magnitudes > more users [and avoid shutdown points] by getting rid of the > directories and self-hosting the TorNet into a DHT or something? Tor would become something else, perhaps UDP Tor. there has been more written on that subject than i can do justice here. i'm fond of DTLS signalling for encapsulated IPsec telescopes with SFQ and DLP transport for multi-homed SCTP endpoints, but that is just one of many possibilities. a grand unified datagram Tor spec has yet to be written...
