Tor Stinks re Traffic Analysis and Sybil (as do other networks)

[Punk-Stasi 2.0]

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 06:03:38 -0500
grarpamp <grarpamp at 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. 


> 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. 


> 
> > 	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. 


> 
> > 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'.

	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.