On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 03:27:30PM -0300, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 06:03:38 -0500 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
by 'low latency' they mean two things :
1) 'efficient' use of data transmission capacity, i.e. whether chaff is sent(expensive) or not.
Chaff might be really only "expensive" if 1) Monetary, user chose to pay for it under metered plan,
except, unmetered plans are a scam. And that's the whole point. I think it's safe to assume that 'backbones' can't carry chaff traffic. If a substantial number of ppl tried to use their 'unmetered' plans to transmit chaff the nsa-network would grind to a halt.
This sounds correct to a degree. "At purchased capacity, for 'unmetered' plans." In other words under utilized long-duration chaff filled links, ought be incentivized against. This is natural for a friend to friend link - I know my friend by name/nick, and holler at him if his usage pattern is causing me to burn significant chaff which he simply does not use. Remember, we're attempting to create at least somewhat of a switch based overlay net - so the primary connection is a link between 2 peer nodes A and B. Of course, onion routing is onion routing, and so the p2p node link is just a first hop - a 2nd hop must onion across B, e.g. A B C, but now C receives packets "from B" which are really from A, and C is still going to get annoyed if the B C link is "significantly" under utilized. (In practice of course "get annoyed" is a misnomer - only tech folks even bother to look at e.g. wheat/chaff utilization stats, and so the incentivization algos must be (as far as possible) built into link bandwidth management, i.e., automatically shape up and down as needed yet according to "user specified + random" hysteresis conf. May still have a "You might want to get annoyed at peer X" dialog too :) )
or refuses to buildout free p2p, guerilla, mesh networks.
...yeah chaff wouldn't be a problem in a network with no backbones. Too bad such mesh network doesn't exist.
Steve Schear - perhaps you are inclined to include some links and possibly a write up, into text files in the iqnets/doc/ dir (or new git proj if you think that's better)? Some of us see an alt phys net as foundational to our goals here ... and to this end intend iqnets to use and facilitate such links at core protocol... permanent ("stable" "backhaul") dark links, as well as ephemeral temporary e.g. mobile phone ad hoc wireless meshe links. Steve, in these early (design, info gathering) days, a big part of our work is scouring the webs for possibly useful info and dumping such into a links file (e.g. urls-alt-phys-net.txt), and, as inspiration grabs you, write up that which needs to be written up.
2) actual low latency. In order to prevent timing attacks, packets need to be reclocked, which means adding delay, which results in higher 'latency'.
Also, depending on nature of input, reclocking may not necessarily imply additional average delay, as packets and gaps between them might be simply normalized. randomized and or distributed within the same overall sum.
the only way to do that is by introducing more delay. Which is fine as far I'm concerned. Because the biggest problem is fucktards who want to download 100mbs in 2 seconds with no 'latency'. Such assholes need re-education.
It's not a binary - any type of link that two peer nodes agree to establish, within the bounds of their config, is just fine. Depending on my utilitization of a link to a peer, I may then hand out portions of that link for T time period etc...
any low-latency web onion router - could not defeat The Man
This seems yet to be lacking proof and perhaps cannot actually be said without it.
That's not what I quoted from scum-master syverson. As to how much 'latency' would a better system introduce, that's an 'open question'.
You and grarpamp appear to be saying the same thing...
Also, I forgot to mention the obvious fact that using 3 chained proxies aka 'onion routing' instead of a direct connection generates an amount of 'latency' that can't be avoided.
Yes, every extra hop is extra inherent latency. The only challenge I've seen to that is certain fibre optic repeater kit which simply aplifies and repeats an incoming signal - due to their funky excitation block, which is analog, there is either actually no introduced latency, or it's so small as to be not measurable or something... been a while since I read about that.