Delivery-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 22:00:39 -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=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
	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 6C4421E0F5C;
	Sun, 12 Oct 2014 22:00:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34C0E313B5;
	Mon, 13 Oct 2014 02:00:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92E0C313B3
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 02:00:30 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eugeni.torproject.org
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 La-fi5hosknk for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>;
 Mon, 13 Oct 2014 02:00:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-vc0-f180.google.com (mail-vc0-f180.google.com
 [209.85.220.180])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com",
 Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (not verified))
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59559313B1
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 02:00:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id le20so5146675vcb.39
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
 :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
 bh=hLdB6WN9ghUiyxCCrSVpQzvfSz/iqEG5iKXH/x0sLdc=;
 b=fg8nyIDr/f8ZAXhZ1uMA9dGk1OLko58Ebxl9RUy2aWcuy5umN6UldgdX/hPDh3ox32
 vUAfq5NM6782za1U7lbcnUjtUZ4tEMDr3glkpqbUxFCJ5hSR4lbxWho18uMExjSMfKoa
 yTZMLvum+UG9bC8sGYcZ3mMW3YlTod0jNiWrUJXL1bc+MWBuPnwQKXlwHg97dtNptNIF
 DfRu3S+gIsSXK1twX++e9HcOJSb3YYI3kiIV3oh2YctG1B7dFos0/aACM6vosxtmL31A
 lmWbHgrEu3d3P9c9xATdjbje6rloTXQ9XDMOt8GB46Wdv1GTpq6RD1uwrWlynFmOhDXF
 eVpg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkAYEalgwMZxZd5zhQOds3vweWYBWNLWP1WizebcfpafZ7ZQbhx//Qn0ADsfg/zza4ZId2n
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.52.136 with SMTP id t8mr14860839vdo.21.1413165626339;
 Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.40.2 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <c89dfc787bb0b5459316f6baaf85022a@cryptolab.net>
References: <597899488.3907271413062124086.javamail.root@ip-10-181-20-37.ec2.internal>
 <719492467.3957621413068678816.javamail.root@ip-10-181-20-37.ec2.internal>
 <canlpe+m-mqkbxc3jah5oggra7j-7ju-kj0tzj0z1ms8r0apgng@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141011231732.ge54413@moria.seul.org>
 <canlpe+nlookeocoyk6npy2tdzs+gmpyzqdntiyyqfphitwpvng@mail.gmail.com>
 <44BDACD3189.00000851beatthebastards@inbox.com>
 <c89dfc787bb0b5459316f6baaf85022a@cryptolab.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:00:26 +0900
Message-ID: <CANLPe+O3PZFngH3LnAXjAqKoXUOX3jqm63NZbbcUXdJP+s2DAg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Casey Rodarmor <casey@rodarmor.com>
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Tor Relay Smartphone App
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 Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Griffin Boyce <griffin@cryptolab.net>
wrote:

> It seems really obvious not to run a relay off of an extremely low-power
> computer.


I'd just like to add that I don't think it is really obvious that running a
relay from an extremely low-power computer is a bad idea. There are many
networks in which anemic computers can be successful participants, even
with highish bandwidth requirements. There are probably tons of people out
there who are sympathetic to the high level goals of tor, but don't have
enough background on how it works to know exactly what kind of hardware it
needs. (Including myself, at the beginning of this thread!)

I would hope that a multi-pronged approach would be adopted, to:

1. Educate users about what hardware and software they need to productively
contribute.

2. Improve the network to allow users to productively contribute with
whatever resources they can. (For example, even allowing users who cannot
proxy traffic of any kind to at least participate in peer discovery, or
contribute somehow to geographic diversity or fault tolerance.)

3. Improve software to inform users that they don't have the hardware and
software necessarily to contribute. A well meaning user should just get a
friendly message saying that they should buy better hardware or upgrade
their connection, and the client should refuse to run.

I think such a multi-pronged, user-friendly, and fault-tolerant approach
would probably best serve the long-term goals of the project.


> IRL, I always try to convince people not to do it, but it rarely works.
> Honestly I would recommend against it even for a bridge, but there's
> something to be said for having increased address diversity at the expense
> of performance.  (But I *also* don't want bridge users to be penalized for
> needing to use a bridge).
>
>   Raspberry Pis are decent for most running hidden services, however they
> suck royally for relays.
>
>   But to answer your actual question: because we each only have a finite
> amount of time and can't respond to every thread.  As for what to run a
> relay on, there are very small servers that run about $100 that get the job
> done.
>
>   I follow the "1 rule" -- At a bare minimum, 1GB RAM & 1Ghz CPU,
> connected via ethernet, with "RelayBandwidthRate 1000 KB" set in torrc.
> This is for a dedicated machine that only runs a relay. Not a raspi, not
> your phone, not a cafe wifi in Kamchatka. Test your internet speed before
> setting up your relay and you may be pleasantly surprised at how much
> throughput you can get. =) Helping the network is really important, but you
> want to make sure that you're not actually hurting the network on accident.
>
> best,
> Griffin
>
> --
> "I believe that usability is a security concern; systems that do
> not pay close attention to the human interaction factors involved
> risk failing to provide security by failing to attract users."
> ~Len Sassaman
>
> --
> 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
>
-- 
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

