Box for simple Tor node.

[jim bell]

 My comments inline:

    On Sunday, October 13, 2019, 02:02:06 PM PDT, Punk <punks at tfwno.gf> wrote:  
 
 On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 07:54:53 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:


>> Why not implement an entirely new anonymization network?
    
 >   You should talk to roger ver and convince him of funding/promoting such a thing. Have him put his money where his mouth is. I say "you" because you have serious cypherpunks credentials so he should at least listen to you.

Okay, sounds like an excellent idea.  I will do that. 
 But let's flesh out some of the numbers and practices.  Shouldn't take more than a few hours or at most a couple days, to give everybody an input. 
This   https://www.amazon.com/CanaKit-Raspberry-4GB-Basic-Starter/dp/B07VYC6S56/ref=sr_1_5?keywords=raspberry+pi+4&qid=1571002803&sr=8-5  appears to be a representative sample of a Raspberry Pi 4 board, in kit form, 4 gigabyte of RAM (I guess they must mean SDCard, right, and not ordinary SRAM or DRAM?  SD wears out, right?), with cables, a clear plastic box.  $85 in quantity one.   What discounts there will be in quantity 1000, I do not know.   (I'm not choosing this particular one, necessarily, just using it as what appears to be a representative sample of the concept.)
Can we agree that 1,000 quantity will be a good initial "critical mass" for this project? TOR is currently larger,  https://metrics.torproject.org/networksize.html but 1000 is still a good start.
While hypothetically node operators might receive some sort of subsidy (in full or in part) for their internet-service cost, it's also plausible that their Internet payment will be their "skin in the game", their contribution to the project.  Centurylink offers 1 gigabit/second service for $65 plus tax.  The speed itself is only one part of the issue.  I think there is no data limit for their 1 gigabit service; their slower services may have a 1 terabyte/month limit.  


>    As to 'entirely new', it seems to me that a high latency mixing network (which is not a 'new' design) is desirable. Such a network should allow people to communicate using non-real-time messages, instead of allowing them to browse jewtube. Low latency/real time networks and communications seem a lot harder to secure."

What I'm thinking of is a programmable-latency network, say anything from 1 to 256 hops.  Although, it would be hard to imagine needing more than 16, I suppose.
This is a list of proposed 'improvements' to TOR.   https://blog.torproject.org/tor-design-proposals-how-we-make-changes-our-protocol  No doubt SOMEWHERE there is a list of 'proposed improvements that we know the TOR structure will never agree to because they will be considered 'too good' '.   Shouldn't we use those, too?   Especially those!
                      Jim Bell
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 5345 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20191013/20f73c07/attachment.txt>