Scalability and fairness [was: P2P over Tor [was: Anomos - anonBT]]

coderman coderman at
Wed Nov 17 23:49:14 UTC 2010

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 3:02 PM, grarpamp <grarpamp at> wrote:
> ...
> So long as users are covering their bandwidth with giveback [1], I
> think it's safe to assume the rest of their overhead is also covered
> by the addition of that node to the network.

there's always a catch. ;)

> ...
> [1] It's already established that in order for your use of Tor
> bandwidth to be zero sum (in the Hidden Service <--> Hidden Service
> case) you need to give back at least 6x your use. So you will already
> be running said relay (for the purpose of bandwidth giveback).
> [2] Isn't there a proposal out there to better handle magnitudes
> more users [and avoid shutdown points] by getting rid of the
> directories and self-hosting the TorNet into a DHT or something?

Tor would become something else, perhaps UDP Tor.

there has been more written on that subject than i can do justice
here.  i'm fond of DTLS signalling for encapsulated IPsec telescopes
with SFQ and DLP transport for multi-homed SCTP endpoints, but that is
just one of many possibilities.

a grand unified datagram Tor spec has yet to be written...

More information about the tor-dev mailing list