<div class="gmail_quote">On 25 February 2010 12:50, grarpamp <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:grarpamp@gmail.com">grarpamp@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">> BitBlinder attempts to create a closed Tor-based network for bittorrent</div><div class="im">
> traffic, including a system attempting to assure equal sharing.<br>
<br>
</div>It may end up being ok. But never I understand why create a separate<br>
Tor universe. Sure, if want to only do torrent. But that is may not usual<br>
case and steals resources that could be better put to use making the one<br>
single tor universe bigger. You have to run a relay with their system<br>
so everybody may as just well run one within the single Tor universe.<br>
I question registraton and possible future commercial motivations.<br>
Given client's pki, registration should not be needed, just run the client<br>
and use pubkey as self register/track/accounting somewhere.<br>
And there will be major scale issues to solve, why not cooperate and<br>
do that under Tor namebadge as well.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think that the choice to use a separate tor network is based on two things:</div><div>-a desire to avoid overloading the existing tor infrastructure with BitTorrent traffic , and</div>
<div>-a pragmatic need to implement the bandwidth `coins' system to ensure equal sharing.</div><div><br></div><div>And on those notes, I think that there is value in using an independent network. Besides, it wouldn't be too difficult (but still not totally trivial) to after-the-fact switch the BB network onto the primary Tor network; it would be much more troublesome to take BB off the Tor network if it seemed to be problematic.</div>
</div>