Website listing donors to TOR system: We should contact them and ask for sponsorship, just like they did for TOR.

[jim bell]

 On Tuesday, October 22, 2019, 11:42:04 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
 
 
 On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 08:48:11PM +0000, jim bell wrote:
>  On Tuesday, October 22, 2019, 02:51:16 AM PDT, Zenaan Harkness
>  <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:

...
> >I think seeking donations may be a little to soon, but I ABSOLUTELY
> >INSIST that you hold the authority on this front!
> 
>> I should have been clearer as to why I suggested contacting these
>> organization.   Obtaining funds is, of course, a good possibility,
>> but even more important:  We want to be able to demonstrate why the
>> whole TOR arrangement is rotten and corrupt.   Some of the
> >organizations donating to TOR are merely carrying the Feds' water,
>> but a few might not be.   Put yourself in their place:  Do they
>> currently have an opportunity to support anonymized communication,
>> other than TOR?   If they don't, let's give it to them.  

>I am strongly with Juan on this one - we have yet to establish even
whether we can "convince ourselves" that what we want to achieve is
technically possible.

Yes, we need to address numerous issues;  That's one reason I left that email for I2P.  There are, no doubt, many other people who are considering this problem, this possible task.   Where does the hardware come from?  How about the funding?   What about the software? Who will handle the nodes?   But if the project is to happen, we should attempt to solve every part of the problem.  And that other people may have already anticipated a portion of the solution.  

>This contemplation, design, challenge and re-design cycle may iterate
for months, and may possibly either not conclude, or conclude with
"we can't be sure we can relevantly improve the status quo".

We are doing what needs to be done, considering all parts of the problem.  By contacting other people  who may have been considering parts of the problem, we may be able to put together some puzzle-pieces.  The I2P people may already have all the software necessary, or at least source-code that can be ported to a computer we might want to use.   

>Of course enthusiasm is to be admired, but we must check ourselves
appropriately, and Juan has voiced an important fundamental "check"
in this instance, which I agree with (to repeat, "we don't even know
what we're doing, nor whether we believe it's possible/ probable").

Well, before TOR actually existed for the first time, whether an anonymization network was "possible" was unknown.  But we've long learned it is indeed possible.  We are just trying to implement it a second time, in a different way.  


>> We have a major advantage in the fact that our intended network
>> will likely be far more economical than TOR funding supports. This
> >article shows that 2017 revenue for the TOR project is 
>>  https://www.secureworldexpo.com/industry-news/tor-government-funding-numbers 
> > $4.2 million dollars.
>
>> What would a 6,000 node replacement for TOR cost?   Multiply by
>> one-time cost of about $80 for the node hardware, and that's about
>> $480,000.  If we could get a $20 monthly subsidy for Internet
>> service for each node, that's $120,000 per month, or $1.44 million
>> per year.  About one third of TOR.  (Such a subsidy would pay for
>> an upgrade from a typical 40 Mbits/second node with limited monthly
>> data, to a 1 Gigabit service with unlimited data.  Many people
>> would jump on the bandwagon just for this perk.)

>But, and to echo Juan again, do we know that "a 6K node" phys net is
even useful, or that we have something significantly "advanced in
respect of today's status quo"?

I don't, it's just numbers at this point.  But I want to get other people THINKING about what we are considering:  What would it take to implement a competing, TOR-like system.   How much money?  What hardware?  What software?  Who would volunteer to host a node?  

>And the obvious answer is no, certainly not yet.

But that's why we must continue to talk, amongst ourselves, and with others at well.  


>> I want to contact these organizations, more to establish the ones
>> who would FAIL to help us.  We can use such a list for
>> fundraising.  We can say, "These organizations supported TOR for an
>>unknown reason, but when they were given the opportunity to fund a
>> true competitor to TOR, they punted and wouldn't help us.  Doesn't
>> that tell you something about why they support(ed) TOR?

>It may well be that every (or nearly all) org that has funded Tor,
has been nothing but a conduit for the CIA.  Tor is the CIA's pet
project - as long as they control the directory authority nodes (thus
the lynching of Jacob Applebaum) they have a tool where they have
the upper hand over the entire world, where that tool is the only
"useful in any practical sense of the word" tool of this type...

Perhaps, but let's find out, shall we?   We have that as a working hypothesis, so how do we test it?  I have a relatively easy solution:  Contact all the former and current funders, and pitch another system, much cheaper than TOR's current costs.  If they are indeed puppets of the CIA, they will likely refuse.  (Or they will offer money, but on conditions we won't accept.)   If SOME of them are not puppets, they will consider our plan.  Maybe even provide some funding.    Whatever the result, we will be able to use it (the money, or the information that they won't donate)to the benefit of our project.  
Remember, a very successful project would result if we can subsidize 1000 nodes, at a subsidy of $50/node, with the node-holders financing the Internet service costs.   $50,000.   If we cannot find ANY donors, from TOR's current and past donor list, that tells us something!   


[snip]

>> I am certainly willing to participate, but I question whether I
>> should be seen, by publicity, as "The Head Guy".  I could just as
>> easily be "One of many".   


>Not to worry - it's (far) too early to put ourselves in boxes as far
as I'm concerned - I believe that it will be 4 to 6 months, bare
minimum, just for us to analyze the problem space, and the relevant
papers (current thoughts) on this space.

>And at -that- point it might even make sense to code up a few actual
tests, if we come to e.g. conclusions such as "well, since we've
apparently satisfied ourselves in apparent logic that ABC should
theoretically work but we're Not Sure (TM)(C)(R), at least we can
whip up a test platform and eliminate variable XYZ" - but even this
may not be possible - we may never reach the point of sufficient
confidence. We may well, but we may not.

I am hoping that this I2P has the software down, and can port it to whatever hardware we'd like to use, or it is already ported to an acceptable selection of SBC's.  



>> Again, I appreciate your support.  But let's also find other people
>> with less-tarnished reputations.

>Here's my point - your reputation is only tainted in the eyes of
those who don't care for facts, and who heed rumours.

Unfortunately, we may want to get the assistance of some of those people.   Let's NOT think of this as being "Jim Bell's Project".  It's nothing that thousands of people haven't thought about, perhaps only fleetingly, but nobody has yet put the pieces together.   I merely repeated these people's wish.  

>Put another way is an old saying from some anon somewhere:

>  The things that matter, matter to those who matter;
  and the rest, simply don't matter.
  Anon.

>Yes, the mob occasionally becomes relevant, but mostly in life we
want to establish as quickly as possible whether those who cross our
paths are actually worth our time of day at all!

>And to that end, a few simple challenge questions are almost all
that's ever needed to put an ignorant and plucky reporter or wanna
be, in their place:

 > "So did you check the facts?"

  >[And of course, if they did not contact you directly, personally,
  they obviously never checked the facts, did they?]

>And that, brother Jim, is what I call a firetrucking knockout :D

>Wear that feather proudly! :)

>That said - your job is not to be who you think I (or anyone else)
want you to be - you job is to be you, which may entail a little self
discovery of who you are - you've got some serious events and years
under yer belt, so that's a fair bit of discovery, eh ;)




> >Real men gotta be alpha.
> 
> >You need help, you ask!
> 
> >I am personally only getting going on this, because of you, to
> support you personally. I wanted to get going years ago, and really
> wanted to handle other things a bit more for the next year, but we're
> outta time, and you called, so here I am, answering your call! My own
> contributions may be insufficient, but by the grace of our Creator,
> it's what I have to offer. I am in service.
> 
> >Do not let me down by failing to hold your own authority, with
> dignity, and firmly.
> 
> >Peace,
> 
> Okay, let's hear more ideas from other people, as well.
>                         Jim Bell
> 
> 
>  


| 
| 
| 
|  |  |

 |

 |
| 
|  | 
4 Sources of Income: Who Pays to Keep the Tor Browser Going?

Bruce Sussman

Tor browser receives government funding. How much does the U.S. government pay Tor each year? What are the Tor s...
 |

 |

 |



  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 19088 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20191023/54c26b60/attachment.txt>