Delivery-Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 17:20:08 -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=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
	DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_DKIM_INVALID
	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 6D36E1E01A4;
	Mon,  1 Sep 2014 17:20:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C43130E85;
	Mon,  1 Sep 2014 21:20:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1AE330E83
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Mon,  1 Sep 2014 21:19:58 +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 ODwVIA8bkoVd for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>;
 Mon,  1 Sep 2014 21:19:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-wi0-x229.google.com (mail-wi0-x229.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::229])
 (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 60ED530E81
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Mon,  1 Sep 2014 21:19:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wi0-f169.google.com with SMTP id n3so3187847wiv.0
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Mon, 01 Sep 2014 14:19:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
 :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=rPC0h0uIrFP+II+Z6yP0wSmcAUGV/Nw9TPToVGUcZmU=;
 b=RnfSuuE/sc5UcwzwWKai6rmku3NHV046Y116Z33UZluC7YmNqP7KyFS9Y9u0vKUCaj
 8kKdwSThXV9DUNVxSn9U9l2ptv1xln1WThPyuMrz0gREFTkEzH9AOW40IQ5IDYvjW91r
 o/C0Nd3TcloW/RbF20F0y0kVaZw2wL35D2nUJGdbz+r/BdLJ/p9tOsykI+Bla+eD7vkj
 QsF5C4uWGbSNCAm0Pj3WHbtn5bmsw4EqDb9Hkdg9VA9bFQQg6Nhb7UTyrJvUd/6bdi3g
 bcMYQA/omaZ+TdepntF4BkosG/pWXDFmOSUgNToSvYJtp+TxhLJkX4DccCxVuTPTlfcj
 fwuQ==
X-Received: by 10.180.109.169 with SMTP id ht9mr24243345wib.1.1409606395409;
 Mon, 01 Sep 2014 14:19:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (ANice-652-1-127-63.w83-201.abo.wanadoo.fr.
 [83.201.150.63])
 by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id lq8sm4627395wjb.49.2014.09.01.14.19.54
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>
 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
 Mon, 01 Sep 2014 14:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5404E302.2090904@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 23:20:02 +0200
From: Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
References: <20140901134422.GA28782@lo.psyced.org>
In-Reply-To: <20140901134422.GA28782@lo.psyced.org>
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Micropayment embedded in circuit building? New idea?
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-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org
Sender: "tor-talk" <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>

First question is: why do you want people to pay for relays? That's =

probably one of the best way to deanonymize you.

Second is: why apparently you only envision to use/scale the Tor =

network, and not the Tor protocol for a P2P system? Knowing that the Tor =

network is absolutely not designed at all for P2P capabilities, whether =

it's about torrents, telephony, etc

Corollary is: Peersm project ([1],[2]), a P2P system using the Tor =

protocol (and, marginally, the Tor network for non P2P exchanges, ie web =

fetching)

Please see comments below.

[1] http://www.peersm.com
[2] =

https://github.com/Ayms/node-Tor#anonymous-serverless-p2p-inside-browsers--=
-peersm-specs
[3] https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live


Le 01/09/2014 15:44, carlo von lynX a =E9crit :
> Hiya.. don't know if anyone has thought of this before:
>
> What if there was a sufficiently brilliant and lightweight
> micropayment system, that you could pay relay nodes for
> anonymizing your circuits?

You don't have to pay, if the P2P system is efficient, please see below.

>
> I don't care to turn Tor into a business - the point is
> to solve the incentivation question in case we would want
> to require onion routing as an obligatory feature for
> future commercial telephony, on a national or continental
> scale.
>
> Also I don't want to deviate the discussion on this list
> towards micropayments. I'd rather discuss that elsewhere.
> It's more about the idea of being able to embed OOB data
> into the circuits that pays each relay a microsum each
> second of use, allowing this to run phone calls or torrents.
>
> The next step would then be to allow applications to choose
> relays on a topological/latency-oriented basis. If such a
> new Tor network had a millions of relay nodes, it would be
> reasonable and safe to pick all relays within my current
> physical area.

Why your physical area? To give a chance to locate where you are? The =

latency of the Tor network is different from the latency of a P2P system =

using the Tor protocol

>   Concerning Tor's scalability, a new network
> would probably replace the directory servers with GNUnet-like
> mesh routing technology. It is sufficient for legislation to
> know that a technical solution can be found.

Just replace it with a DHT based routing system where references to =

peers are ephemeral and the distance to peers have nothing to do with =

your location but allows you to detect compromised ones.

And make sure that the peers can not freeride (unlike the bittorrent =

protocol [3]), ie they must participate to the common P2P effort, which =

is the case for peersm concepts since you get referenced by others

>
> The intention is to anonymize the billing system in mobile
> telephony while also anonymizing and encrypting telephony
> itself. With such an architecture it would no longer be
> necesary for the mobile phone to identify itself as it
> checks into the phone network - thus it becomes commercially
> viable to not collect location data of the people as they
> carry a mobile phone with them.
>
> In other words I'm trying to save democracy from informatic
> totalitarianism, ironically by coming up with a business
> solution.
>
> It's a thought that hit me while going through the ideas
> about obligatory crypto and anonymization legislation that
> I laid out in http://youbroketheinternet.org/legislation/

Please see above (DHT and ephemeral IDs for peers), the P2P system =

should not mimic the Tor network, no guards concepts or such.

> and that I am discussing with members of some political
> parties today at 5pm in Berlin Schoeneberg, Crellestr. 33.
> That's like.. oops.. in an hour.
>
> If you agree that this is a viable concept and just needs
> a lot of research

I don't think it needs a lot of research, everything is already there =

(then please feel free to redirect EC to peersm).

If we forget about encryption/anonymity I think the peersm concepts =

could apply to bittorrent itself, those that are advertising/relaying =

something are not those that have it but might know someone that has it =

or someone that might know someone else has it, making difficult to know =

who is seeding what and who is requesting what.

And, despite of the fact that research seems to have wrongly given up =

with P2P studies, it appears (to me at least) obvious that even if some =

uses can be questionnable, the global strength of the P2P system can =

allow non questionnable uses, like legacy streaming, telephony, etc, =

without the need to pay anyone in the loop, basically the "bad use" is =

boosting the "good use"

> , then it is at the right stage for going
> into that legislation proposal.
>
> One could go further and allow a free marketplace among relay
> nodes but THAT I assume would be very very bad since then apps
> would come up that always choose the cheapest route and you
> know who has an incentive in offering the cheapest routes below
> market level. So that is something that cannot be permitted,
> the relay usage tariff would have to be standardized all over.
> In fact, it would probably even need a way to be enforced.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Best from Berlin, @lynXintl
>

-- =

Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms

-- =

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

