I get the sense that there are some exit node operators who can't attempt it or deliberately aren't for reasons related to the direct ownership of abuse complaints. But there are some where there could be ambiguity. It is not always clear-cut who the end-user of each service is. Things like leased servers with multiple sub-users, roommate/shared internet, shared VPNs, shells given away to friends, etc, are a part of it.

It's not all about the method. Thoughts are:

- One way to damage Tor would be to mess things up for exit node operators either personally or professionally. IMO the less 'they' know about exit operators, the less damage they can do with that kind of approach. That would include information obtained from getting to know someone on IRC in this context, as you don't really know who you are talking to or if you're being monitored.

- If authorities can ever build a case where Tor can be accused of being a dirty little network which hosts criminal content and profits from it, it seems that it could be fucked. I already saw Tor identified by one media source as simply being an internet network that criminals use. We know that this isn't a fair description but I'm not sure that would make a difference if certain cards get played?

- When you can be demonstrated to have received money, depending upon what that money was sent for, it can be used against you.

If money was to be sent, it seems better if it were done as a consulting sort of agreement? It would be invoiced like any other internet consulting service you are willing to provide (and it wouldn't be the only service offered). It wouldn't involve personal-feeling chats on IRC, it would be a professional relationship. What do you think?

I don't want to scare anyone away with this stuff. Just feel like we should be more careful than what I was reading. Doesn't feel right to encourage exit node operators to show up on IRC with their bank account #s ready to go.