Re: [tor-talk] About time to make BitTorrent work over Tor,
----- Forwarded message from grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> ----- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 04:09:35 -0400 From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org Subject: Re: [tor-talk] About time to make BitTorrent work over Tor, Reply-To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org On 8/26/13, Kostas Jakeliunas <kostas@jakeliunas.com> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Nathan Suchy < theusernameiwantistaken@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't want this for piracy as I have a paid VPN account that is much faster for that if I decide to pirate. I think we need BitTorrent though to work on Tor so Tor Users can securely share files with one another.
AFAIK the most obvious issue with this (among more subtle side-channel attack / decloaking problems) is network scalability. Total relay bandwidth available is, while seemingly increasing in general, very limited given such use cases. [1] How does one scale BitTorrent on top of that? ... But perhaps there's still some discussion to be had. I'm sure this has been discussed myriads of times, however - maybe it's worth trying to browse through the mailing list archives.
Technically, Bittorrent works fine when run completely inside Tor. The resources needed at the client are reasonable (ie: cpu). The bandwidth is currently reasonably available. And onions are secure enough for people who insist on skirting copyright. That alone makes me wonder why Tor hasn't grown any long lived torrent clouds. Probably because the entry bar is high and the slower speed is beyond the scope of the typical leeching mindset. What people should know is that Tor currently can't handle it at scale in at least two areas... Transferring 1MiB causes about 7MiB worth of reduction in Tor bandwidth, plus the CPU and state for processing the circuits. You can get that back by running relays, but the vast bulk of the above users probably won't be willing or bothered to do that, let alone be able to figure out how to do it right and in conjunction with their BT app. So Tor is likely to tank from that alone. Then assuming they did run relays, the last part is dealing with N million users worth of relay and onion descriptors. That takes out more bandwidth, the dirservers, and everyone's local cpu and ram. For those reasons, it's hard to truly push mass use of p2p over Tor. Yet I think given the greater probability of a p2p influx as time goes on [1], Tor really should have some prepared design considerations on the table beyond "please don't do that", which torrenters obviously ignore. Hopefully designs can be found that aren't restrictive. [1] Pick any hot p2p app, drop N million users worth on Tor. In this thread it's BT... being driven slowly towards anonymous systems by the anti's [today, Russian blocking], enhanced by piratebrowser giving hints to millions of users "Hey, what's this Tor thing? What are these onions I see there? Hmm..." -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsusbscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:33:36AM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
----- Forwarded message from grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> -----
On 8/26/13, Kostas Jakeliunas <kostas@jakeliunas.com> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Nathan Suchy < theusernameiwantistaken@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't want this for piracy as I have a paid VPN account that is much faster for that if I decide to pirate. I think we need BitTorrent though to work on Tor so Tor Users can securely share files with one another.
AFAIK the most obvious issue with this (among more subtle side-channel attack / decloaking problems) is network scalability. Total relay bandwidth available is, while seemingly increasing in general, very limited given such use cases. [1]
How does one scale BitTorrent on top of that?
By adding TOR exit-node functionality into the bittorrent clients, and giving bittorrent credit score to clients with lots of TOR-traffic. That would scale the TOR network, and also give plausible deniability to direct downloads ("wasn't me, it was the TOR exit" ;-) -jf
Quoting Jan-Frode Myklebust (2013-08-30 09:38:52)
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:33:36AM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
----- Forwarded message from grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> -----
How does one scale BitTorrent on top of that?
By adding TOR exit-node functionality into the bittorrent clients, and giving bittorrent credit score to clients with lots of TOR-traffic. That would scale the TOR network, and also give plausible deniability to direct downloads ("wasn't me, it was the TOR exit" ;-)
If you have a tor exit-node some sites are block or give you problems, like google, wikipedia or irc.freenode.org. To activate an exit node by default will annoy a lot of users. -- Rubén Pollán | http://meskio.net/ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- My new OpenPGP key: gpg --recv-key 0xC732B1D1C28F4E2F Migration statement from the old key: http://meskio.net/key/statement -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Nos vamos a Croatan.
On 30 Aug 2013, at 08:38, Jan-Frode Myklebust <janfrode@tanso.net> wrote:
By adding TOR exit-node functionality into the bittorrent clients, and giving bittorrent credit score to clients with lots of TOR-traffic. That would scale the TOR network, and also give plausible deniability to direct downloads ("wasn't me, it was the TOR exit" ;-)
I like the idea, but I think that would draw possibly bad coverage to Tor (Tor fuels pirate/illegal download yada yada) , something already they have to deal with (Tor is used by paedos/turrists). -------------------------------------- Bernard / bluboxthief / ei8fdb IO91XM / www.ei8fdb.org
On 8/30/13, Jan-Frode Myklebust <janfrode@tanso.net> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Nathan Suchy
I don't want this for piracy as I have a paid VPN account that is much faster for that if I decide to pirate. I think we need BitTorrent though to work on Tor so Tor Users can securely share files with one another.
AFAIK the most obvious issue with this (among more subtle side-channel attack / decloaking problems) is network scalability. Total relay bandwidth available is, while seemingly increasing in general, very limited given such use cases. [1] How does one scale BitTorrent on top of that?
By adding TOR exit-node functionality into the bittorrent clients, and giving bittorrent credit score to clients with lots of TOR-traffic. That would scale the TOR network ...
Tor does not currently scale as simply as that. Therefore whatever you try to scale on top of Tor will not scale either. All using exits will do (roughly speaking) is cause Tor to fail 1/2 as fast as using the purely internal approach would. BT is further badly hampered since UDP and inbound bindings are unavailable under the current exit model. Tor's design is generally "move a lot of browsers over a few exits", anything else is bonus, at least historically. At the moment, if you're trying to move to millions of p2p users, not just hundreds of tinkerers, you're better off enhancing Tor first or writing or finding another secure transport that scales better. Then moving it all off the clearnet once and for all. But that appears to be beyond the typical scope of thinking in the BT space, you know, because it's not fast and it's sooo harrrddddd man. Tor is good stuff, but like anything else, only good when used within its model. Supposedly i2p welcomes torrenting. Millions? Ask i2p.
... and also give plausible deniability to direct downloads ("wasn't me, it was the TOR exit" ;-)
No, not really.
participants (5)
-
Bernard Tyers - ei8fdb -
Eugen Leitl -
grarpamp -
Jan-Frode Myklebust -
Ruben Pollan