Re: The Case for Banning Reduced Hop Count Implementations
----- Forwarded message from Paul Syverson <syverson@itd.nrl.navy.mil> -----
On 11/23/09 15:08, Eugen Leitl wrote:
----- Forwarded message from Paul Syverson <syverson@itd.nrl.navy.mil> -----
From: Paul Syverson <syverson@itd.nrl.navy.mil> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:05:49 -0500 To: or-talk@freehaven.net Subject: Re: The Case for Banning Reduced Hop Count Implementations User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Reply-To: or-talk@freehaven.net
Thank you Lucky. I had been meaning to write something like your post.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 02:43:47AM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Lucky Green <shamrock@cypherpunks.to> wrote: [snip]
seeking higher anonymity. The end state, if lower than three hop implementations are permitted to use the Tor network, is that Tor's network performance will acceptable only to users of lower hop clients. I presume you can back this assertion up with simulation results, at a minimum?
I look forward to reading your paper.
Even if Lucky's basic points are eventually born out, you are right that more analysis of latency and incentives would be valuable. To
Incentives in Networking Too long has the community of anonymity software writers ignored the tragedy of the commons. If each tor router could advertise a price for amount of megabytes transferred, it would be a self healing system. Nodes that are overloaded would raise their price. Nodes that had spare capacity would lower theirs. Intelligent clients would be able to pick a route that best suits their latency needs. This quickly becomes a complex scenario like the travelling salesman problem that Web 1.0 and 2.0 technology will not solve. The "semantic web" of Web 3.0 only makes sense in an environment where information is not centralized on an RDBMS with a PHP front end. The RDBMS has been a crutch for programmers who cannot search data in memory. It is also a crutch of those who fail to dig deep into persistence. In an online world, persistence to disk is a crutch and a danger to those that seek anonymity. Better that your data is out there - like on Tahoe - encrypted to your key, but in memory like Scalaris with intelligent spooling to encrypted disks on nodes so equipped. Boot from CDROM. Look mama, no data on disk. SMTP was the high point of Web 1.0 protocols. Why? Because it implements queues and asynchronous messaging. It can be near instant, not much slower than a http POST. It can be secure - and the anonymity high as in mixmaster. What describe I call Web 4.0. It will enable Economically Viable Self Extending Wireless Networks. https://freedom.rayservers.com/Web+4.0 Incentive Settlement The other requirement of Web 4.0 is settlement. Since credit cards, there has been a refusal to look at the problems of settlement. There was little incentive. Digital cash did not make it not because the technology sucked, it was because they did not look into settlement. Credit cards succeeded not because they were wonderful, but because they caused promissory liabilities to be created by both the buyer AND the seller. It was a God send for the official scammer = the bankers. Settlement quietly centralized at the DTCC [www.dtcc.com], where the Quadrillion Dollar figure is quietly touted on their site. Ignorant of what settlement is, or how *they* caused the flood of promissory checking account liabilities, the common people today are destroying the promissory liabilities they created. "Crisis" by design. They have been entrapped: http://www.rayservers.com/blog/generating-power-from-stupidity---the-harsh-t... You can only settle what you issue. This, put tersely is the problem. Each tor node can issue tokens of megabytes of encrypted data transferred. Each can settle its own tokens. It will have to accept tokens of other value issued by other nodes in payment. No need for digital cash. Postage meters are enough. See https://loom.cc/ Its cheaper than "free" The cost of accessing the internet is not zero. A monthly charge is paid to the ISP - either dial-up or broadband. People with a server on the web pay a monthly hosting fee. If you are google, your monthly bill is not trivial. The sum of these payment streams is what pays for the "free" services in some fashion. Starving Web 1.0 The gang of 535 and their minders are busy creating "laws" that ISPs must enforce rights in imaginary property so that no one focuses on the fact that *they* stole all the real property in cohorts with the financial fraudsters. Be that as it may, it will become cheaper for ISPs to offer "so many bytes" of encrypted data transferred than to continue to amortize their running costs via inefficient allocation of revenue streams from retail accounts. It will become cheaper for those who adopt Web 4.0 DSL routers to access the web as the ISP is freed of his obligations to monitor the content. This will take a court case or two, but it will happen. Tor will have to grow up. Web 4.0 will have to support asynchronous messaging. Why? Because your PC is nothing more than a glorified dumb terminal - enabling the centralized control of society. The pendulum will inevitably swing the other way out of necessity. Low latency does not get better than your own PC for "streaming media" such as videos. SMTP Email has become a centralized database on a handful of NSA sites with popular brand names. This will have to move back to a mixmaster style pay per message system. No spam, or at least, they will have to pay your *ask price* to accept an email. The semantic web of 3.0 will have to become a reality as searching for information will not be searching a centralized database like Google. Searches will cost some money... again your total bill will be *less* than your monthly broadband bill unless you are consuming HDTV movies. In which case, you can pay. Suddenly RIAA is our friend. They can *sell* content, reverse auction style, which is how it is anyway in the content industry. See RAH's rants somewhere. Is the current code base of Tor going to evolve to achieve all this? I think not. Code will have to be written with higher levels of abstraction. Transactions will have to queue. MVC will yield to continuations. The geopolitical outlook It is not pretty. A bunch of scammers stole all the people's gold by fraud and war. They have all the guns... Every "citizen" the world over is their registered slave. Fathers and mothers gave their children up as chattel property of the State [Register = give to the State]. It is fraud on a scale you cannot imagine, yet it pervades the air so you do not see it. An anonymous life. A pseudonymous life for a writer may be attractive. Better yet, to construct engines of wealth that run on their own. The old fashioned tools are corporations. In the future they will be private express trusts. The only difference is that the latter won't be "registered" with the official scammers. People have begun to notice these scams. Some brave Americans are in court. http://www.rayservers.com/blog/rodney-class-vs-us This is the stuff of world change. Web 4.0 will be a part of it. You can sneer from the sidelines or take part. Cypherpunks write code... I hope to be one (of many in the future) who can pay such people by creating an ecosystem for such code and bring about what is needed. In the mean time, see you on https://freedom.rayservers.com/ Cheers, ---Venkat.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Rayservers <rayservers@gmail.com> wrote:
... Incentives in Networking
Too long has the community of anonymity software writers ignored the tragedy of the commons. If each tor router could advertise a price for amount of megabytes transferred, it would be a self healing system.
why is monetary compensation required for fairness? the bittorrent protocol with tit for tat is far from perfect but it is also the dominant protocol on the net and encourages fairness without monetary settlement. there are other examples. lucre is but one of many incentives, why do you assume it is the only solution?
On 11/23/09 22:34, coderman wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Rayservers <rayservers@gmail.com> wrote:
... Incentives in Networking
Too long has the community of anonymity software writers ignored the tragedy of the commons. If each tor router could advertise a price for amount of megabytes transferred, it would be a self healing system.
why is monetary compensation required for fairness? the bittorrent protocol with tit for tat is far from perfect but it is also the dominant protocol on the net and encourages fairness without monetary settlement. there are other examples.
lucre is but one of many incentives, why do you assume it is the only solution?
I said price and I also said tokens on another node. It could be peanuts or oil or music or whatever - perhaps donuts. Exchange value for value. At the end of that chain... I go buy a donut. Sure, you can trade points, hashcash, torrentpoints... how do I, who run an ISP, go buy a donut? tit-for-that. lol. Cheers, ---Venkat.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Rayservers <rayservers@gmail.com> wrote:
... I said price and I also said tokens on another node. It could be peanuts or oil or music or whatever - perhaps donuts. Exchange value for value. At the end of that chain... I go buy a donut.
Sure, you can trade points, hashcash, torrentpoints... how do I, who run an ISP, go buy a donut? tit-for-that. lol.
my apologies for focusing solely on the price/money angle. there is a good post about incentives on the Tor blog that covers similar ideas and discusses the complexities and pit falls associated: https://blog.torproject.org/blog/two-incentive-designs-tor using loom for settlement is probably too much overhead for Tor but is aiming closer to what is needed. my issue with money payment in particular is described in this paragraph: "On top of that are the social implications of adding money into the system. Nick keeps reminding me of sociological studies saying that rewarding volunteers with t-shirts makes them feel good about their contribution, whereas rewarding them with a small amount of cash makes them subconsciously start to value their contribution based on the cash you give them. So they're more likely to stop volunteering, as they don't feel their effort is properly appreciated. More details here[0], here[1], and here[2]. It's hard to say how right this research is, but it seems a rough set of variables to add in if we can avoid it." 1. http://www.congo-education.net/wealth-of-networks/ch-04.htm 2. http://fiveandone.wikispaces.com/file/view/Why+Incentive+Plans+Cannot+Work.p... 3. http://www.google.com/search?q=Effects+of+externally+mediated+rewards+on+int... sorry for the rash response. i too am anxious for the day when robust incentives in Tor provide a much larger, much more capable network! best regards,
On 11/24/09 00:25, coderman wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Rayservers <rayservers@gmail.com> wrote:
... I said price and I also said tokens on another node. It could be peanuts or oil or music or whatever - perhaps donuts. Exchange value for value. At the end of that chain... I go buy a donut.
Sure, you can trade points, hashcash, torrentpoints... how do I, who run an ISP, go buy a donut? tit-for-that. lol.
my apologies for focusing solely on the price/money angle. there is a good post about incentives on the Tor blog that covers similar ideas and discusses the complexities and pit falls associated: https://blog.torproject.org/blog/two-incentive-designs-tor
using loom for settlement is probably too much overhead for Tor but is aiming closer to what is needed.
my issue with money payment in particular is described in this paragraph: "On top of that are the social implications of adding money into the system. Nick keeps reminding me of sociological studies saying that rewarding volunteers with t-shirts makes them feel good about their contribution, whereas rewarding them with a small amount of cash makes them subconsciously start to value their contribution based on the cash you give them. So they're more likely to stop volunteering, as they don't feel their effort is properly appreciated. More details here[0], here[1], and here[2]. It's hard to say how right this research is, but it seems a rough set of variables to add in if we can avoid it."
1. http://www.congo-education.net/wealth-of-networks/ch-04.htm 2. http://fiveandone.wikispaces.com/file/view/Why+Incentive+Plans+Cannot+Work.p... 3. http://www.google.com/search?q=Effects+of+externally+mediated+rewards+on+int...
sorry for the rash response. i too am anxious for the day when robust incentives in Tor provide a much larger, much more capable network!
best regards,
No, not rash at all. Its just the way things are today. Very few people can even explain what a dollar is. The subconscious disillusionment with what passes for "money" today results in the aversion towards anything to do with it. One rightly feels that it should be possible to get by without this crap and the attendant parasites and official scammers and terrorists. This is a true statement - the worst crime against humanity is the "money| system as has been practised in a few generations, the attendant theft of all the people's gold by fraud and war and the virtual enslavement by the Identity State build on monetized birth certificates. Re: using loom for settlement is probably too much overhead... One does not do a loom payment per byte. Once a day, say, one buys so many gigabytes of transfer at a particular node which issues and settles its own tokens all by itself. One does the same at a bunch of other nodes. When one initiates an onion routed circuit or mixmaster message, one passes tokens onion encrypted back to the node paying it in its own "bandwidth" currency. That node does not have to talk to anyone else to settle it. Think of loom as a two dimensional sparse array, 2^128 x 2^128. Its a DB with 2^128 "types" with 2^128 "locations". The node issues from a random location for a random type it claims for its own bandwidth. That location goes negative. It hands a random location with a certain number of tokens to a particular customer... the sum of those 2^128 locations is zero. When a node "pays" by revealing its location, the appropriate number of tokens is "moved" back to the issuer location and "extinguished". Paying that node for its tokens is revealing so many tokens of a particular type on another node, that issues, say oil contracts in millilitres. A particular mix/tor node may accept oil contracts from nodes O, I and L and Donut tokens from D, O and N. Note a node could issue Oil, Donut and bandwidth tokens. No shortage of types here. The robotic market will soon vote the most preferred tokens by merely using them. "Ithaca Hours" for street bums could be a currency. I just don't think it would be very popular. A node may be specific enough - "Dollar liabilities of BigBank, Littletown Branch, Somewhere"; "Gold coins in ATM on 51st and 5th, NYC". People will soon catch on that all "Dollars" are not equal. What if BigBank is rumoured to go bust?... Why not digital cash? Every digital cash issuer would need to maintain a spend book DB... why bother. For high value issuance, perhaps we would use that. A loom node may store a cert at a particular issue location and issue tokens against that. This way many nodes could issue oil contracts without being an oil company. Oil company may only issue large contracts in DBCs. Why should tor engineers work for only T-shirts? In the future, there is no reason why they could not be as rich as any Microsoft employee... just better - self made men whose gross income no one knows. An integration application that can talk tor, Mixmaster, SMTP, tahoe, loom, trubanc etc... is needed. I'm planning one: https://freedom.rayservers.com/Globalisles.net Other neat stuff that should go viral and which inspired the name: https://freedom.rayservers.com/Claim+of+Right It is similar, no doubt, to the GSF project which I have had a lot to do with: http://www.global-settlement.org/ Perhaps the word Global can be saved from the Globalists who have butchered many fine words... such as "money", "profit", etc. What happens to a cow who does not produce more than she consumes? DEAD BEEF. Cheers, ---Venkat.
participants (3)
-
coderman -
Eugen Leitl -
Rayservers