Re: [tor-talk] [tor-dev] Freenet + Onioncat: Is the traffic welcome?

[grarpamp]

On 6/23/16, grarpamp  wrote:
> Don't forget to add around 1000+ ms latency.

Should say that on average tor's not that high, but
as to prudently setting somewhat higher timeouts,
especially for initial setup where the '+' may indeed
apply.
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] [tor-dev] Freenet + Onioncat: Is the traffic welcome?

[grarpamp]

On 6/22/16, konst...@mail2tor.com  wrote:
> I want to be clear about a couple of things. I am not looking to defy the
> wishes of Tor developers and relay contributors. I hope to get their views
> on the matter. Should they explicitly refuse, I will look at I2P.

When I ran, donated, managed relays... only wanted all of what
I paid for to be consumed. "Wished" it would be in alignment
with certain ideals, but realized that's not reality.

For more and different opinions from relays, you might want to
post to tor-relays@ referencing the archive url to this thread.

> Second, my idea does not touch Exit bandwidth at all. We will only deploy
> hidden services.

Yeah, it's freenet over tor. Makes for an interesting definition
of hidden service. Don't forget to add around 1000+ ms latency.

> Wasting resources is abusive. However, comparing bittorrent traffic to
> Freenet doesn't do it justice. Freenet is used by dissidents for freedom
> of speech and publishing small static files like blogs, not to share gigs
> of media files.

Anonymous uncensorable overlay networks, are "used" by
whoever, for whatever, limited only by the techinical and practical
capabilities of each network. There are many "gigs of media files"
being shared over freenet and other nets by many happy and even
wasteful users. This fact understandably burns the britches of
those who intend their network to be used only for some other
purposes. It happens.

There seems to be ongoing and growing interest around the
world in overlay nets and parallel wire[less] 'guerilla' nets,
and lots of room for improved and new code and models.
No worries here.

> [arma] the main rule is that if you're going to add traffic to tor, run
some relays to match
> [arma] for hidden services, that's 1MB/s of traffic onto 6 places, so 6MB/s

This has always been my position. Each user of these "free"
community powered networks has an impact. For some nets
this has readily calculable minimums, like tor and its 6x minimum
for exclusively non-exit (HS) use. Other nets or usage models
may be roughly estimated. Therefore each user of such networks
should know / learn the impact for their respective network.
And should realize that they are in a way obligated to return
the resources they consume, as otherwise their network will
not have headroom and their own experience will go downhill fast.

> Freenet has 10KiB/s minimum bandwidth requirement.

Note that the correct form for engineering, and apps interfacing
at the level of, network traffic rates... is bits (b), not bytes (B),
and decimal prefixes, not binary prefixes.
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

Re: [tor-talk] [tor-dev] Freenet + Onioncat: Is the traffic welcome?

[grarpamp]

On 6/22/16, konst...@mail2tor.com  wrote:
> I posted steps on how to connect Freenet nodes over Onioncat and Garlicat
> for Tor/I2P. I am looking to scale it into an Opennet inside Tor with a
> lot of peers:
>
> https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/2016-June/039056.html
> https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/2016-June/039059.html

Cool.

You may want to review two recent threads regarding
# bittorrent
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2016-June/041355.html
# onioncat
https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2016-April/010847.html

(Some portion of these threads are on tor-talk, tor-dev, cypherpunks,
etc so you'll need to search those for full context.
They may span multiple months so you'll have to dig those out.
And note that torproject's archives destroy useful things like
cc, attachments, crypto sigs. Cypherpunks is intact.)

> Is the extra traffic desirable in Tor? Reading asn's comment, I was under
> the impression that you are interested in adding higher latency traffic
> such as Freenet or mixnets for better anonymity:
> https://blog.torproject.org/blog/crowdfunding-future-hidden-services

From the operations and UX side, as opposed to theory and
design side...

Some [officials] within torproject will decry traffic, and have even
gone so far as to suggest they'll deploy coded countermeasures
(which since the traffic is anonymous, and the code is opensource,
doesn't work and kills someone else's good as well). In the end,
just like video on clearnet, users and their traffic will come, and
utilize whatever capacity and features they can, nothing you can
do about it.

A more qualified thought... I find ongoing intentional exclusive
use of exits so people can basically get their trivial entertainment
LOL's using filesharing apps such as bittorrent (or any other use that
is known to tax networks)... to be rather immature to unethical.
However I do see fine use in performing initial import of clearnet
datasets via exits (if maintaining anonymity of such import action is
necessary), provided they then cut their clients over to run exclusively
within the anonymous networks. (In the case of bittorrent, that
means disconnecting the split horizon network path to clearnet,
swapping out clearnet trackers for trackers within the anonymous
overlay networks, using PEX / DHT within those nets, and possibly
managing running two instances over various datasets.) ie:
Someone might import the latest opensource unix iso's via clearnet
without use of exits, then cut and seed exclusively via anon overlay nets.
Same person might need to import the latest political leaks and
civil rights videos via exits, then cut and seed similarly.

> Using both projects in tandem can finally realize the vision of FreeHaven.
> You are the best at firewall circumvention, performance and accessing the
> web, Freenet supplies users with censorship resistant publishing and p2p
> services. There is a HotPETs 16 paper co-authored by George Danezis on
> renewing interest in anonymous storage networks:
>
> http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/M.Isaakidis/p/isaakidis-p2pstorageservices-hotpets16.pdf

I agree that linking the various overlays, features, services, and users
together is generally a good thing. I tend to argue IPv6 for that since
so many of todays apps and users speak that. However there's certainly
other shims, proxies, and addressing stacks people can dream and
code up, particularly for asynchronous / non-real-time messaging and
file like storage services.

Users also need to research and think clearly about any security
and privacy impact using such links may have on them.
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk