To avoid squashing the Tor network with all of these new clients, the
company would almost certainly have to run some big relays to help
compensate for the additional load. Another proposal would be some sort of
incentive for running relays.
-V
___
Il 9/27/14, 2:33 AM, Mike Perry ha scritto:
We could also handle controlled rollouts to fractions of their userbase
to test the waters, and slowly add high capacity nodes to the network to
support these new users, to ensure we have the people ready to accept
payment for running the servers,
Besides the fact that this could be a great opportunity for tor in many
ways I see two problems we should consider:
- this vastly growth would be artificial. What happens to all the
users and servers if they stop supporting the product or close-down?
- IMHO it is a problem if the network
On 26 September 2014 22:28, Mike Perry mikepe...@torproject.org wrote:
That's basically what I'm arguing: We can increase the capacity of the
network by reducing directory waste but adding more high capacity relays
to replace this waste, causing the overall directory to be the same
size, but
But, because this is fraction rises with both D and U, these research
papers rightly point out that you can't keep adding relays *and* users
and expect Tor to scale.
Broadcast a fraction of all available directories? Use md5 as a random
number generator, hash the ECC/RSA keys using md5. A
M. Ziebell:
Besides the fact that this could be a great opportunity for tor in many
ways I see two problems we should consider:
- this vastly growth would be artificial. What happens to all the
users and servers if they stop supporting the product or close-down?
In this case, presumably
Mike Perry:
5. Invest in the Tor network.
Based purely on extrapolating from the Noisebridge relays, we could
add ~300 relays, and double the network capacity for $3M/yr, or about $1
per user per year (based on the user counts from:
https://metrics.torproject.org/users.html).
