Delivery-Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 23:24:18 -0400
Return-Path: <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on moria.seul.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
	DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,T_DKIM_INVALID,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Original-To: archiver@seul.org
Delivered-To: archiver@seul.org
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (eugeni.torproject.org [38.229.72.13])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by khazad-dum.seul.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8E251E0A94;
	Sun, 31 May 2015 23:24:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEB983570B;
	Mon,  1 Jun 2015 03:24:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09B02356E3
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Mon,  1 Jun 2015 03:24:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at 
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (eugeni.torproject.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id S4Kt854qU16w for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>;
 Mon,  1 Jun 2015 03:24:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ig0-x235.google.com (mail-ig0-x235.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::235])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com",
 Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (not verified))
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB09234E07
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Mon,  1 Jun 2015 03:24:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igbpi8 with SMTP id pi8so51693874igb.1
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Sun, 31 May 2015 20:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
 :content-type; bh=ANVvutHr8K34lF7Fb5MPNYG1WrrYiuUXsWCF6UaUvNA=;
 b=f2KESpgP5oDXC5AyBg6L03K3gbJbFvld3Kx9XI7CsxGfdgbFJ6ZbhWWcNTG4z7mI88
 8XCf7Czodivb5ypB32kuDUHZQB5lNNwdou3TuCMvlU5bcuL9NyE7aQDj/sn8Slw6wUMO
 aNv4vrvp66/qWLy+kQzCrbcqweiKSadAZoC42pLs8eq+z6rnEs0G12mcAj2RKMuHws3y
 KhN6UMX0k/hu7EqkscX6ZkyxOe93mTasV+8uu90/F0nO270bmbBD+NCx1xyTKP7yfjXe
 UMdAZC6aOtzKZuGBf/EOJ4XVIsUPOsQs3srdAhIjjsbmcSDUAjxzcgDJqxE75LkUx0N4
 Mf9Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.132.138 with SMTP id o10mr24125183ioi.52.1433129045721; 
 Sun, 31 May 2015 20:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.51.76 with HTTP; Sun, 31 May 2015 20:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150601102051.0a0dfe83@localhost.localdomain>
References: <CAO7N=i2zN5xsVmrwpUbVCRD2Y9_sFun+paANoUo2Ap=hKdeKqw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD2Ti29eXZdf9o3FUeKs+R9_2-B205jCuPwg8846A0TxWcc3VQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150601102051.0a0dfe83@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 23:24:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD2Ti2_QPs3EK-eXuNkhzKAJf167fzNHNP=D4PxHyofYL0nu4A@mail.gmail.com>
From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] [Cryptography] Dark Web should really be called the
 Twilight Web
X-BeenThere: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
List-Id: "all discussion about theory, design,
 and development of Onion Routing" <tor-talk.lists.torproject.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/>
List-Post: <mailto:tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org
Sender: "tor-talk" <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>

On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Katya Titov <kattitov@yandex.com> wrote:
> There are still many places, including some western first-world
> democracies, where Internet access is billed by the byte/KB/MB/GB. I
> live in a G20 country outside the US and pay for traffic usage. And
> anyone using a mobile connection (maybe shared to their laptop) will
> most likely be paying for usage and not bandwidth.

Bytes vs. bitrate is an equivalent numbers game. If such a person
has budgeted for no more than 135GiB/mo, they can set the
cap on their NIC to 56kbps and they will not exceed their budget.
They have to either pass what they want under 56kbps, or play
with the sliders and eat into their days budget which will either
leave them dead before the month, or compromise security.
Even tor itself today has its own natural full path to exit or HS
bitrate limit that you're unlikely to exceed without explicitly
picking your path. There's nothing new / penalty with fill
there. The links will just reduce fill (today silence) until full.

"Unlimited" mobile data plans are available in places around the world.

Fill traffic could be optional on the part of the client or relay nodes.
However to give at least some non global protection to their traffic,
there must be at least one other node doing peer2peer fill with their
next hop nodes. Or at their endpoint.

The various scenarios would need to be drawn on paper towards
a paper proof of concept.
-- 
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

