Interoperating with p2p traffic

[Matt Thorne]

Oh I think that It would be a Better idea from their end anyway to have the
servers built into the client. that way anyone who wanted to use the P2P had
to help with the overall usefullness of the service. Plus from the 5 or so
minutes that I have been thinking about it there are some very interesting
optimizations that could be done to the process to make it work better for
torrents over strait p2p. if they built it in to the client, and didn't give
people the option of being just a middleman then they would probably
completely solve the exit server problem. I would also be willing to bet
that the service of said hypothetical network would be pretty decent.
already they only allow downloading equal to uploading, so if they made it
into a three way balance between up, down, and onion then there would not be
any desparity between users on the network and the networks ability to serve
up files.
 I am just suggesting some type of torrent client that uses the onion-router
principle.
 don't know, just a thought.
 -=Matt=-
  Oh I realize also that Open source is free for use (kinda) but I figured
that it was still polite to ask if no one minded this use of the technology
that they are putting so much effort into creating...
 On 10/12/05, Brian C <brianwc at ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Matt Thorne wrote:
> > That isn't a bad Idea, and possibly something that They (with help
> > ofcourse :-) could build into their P2P software. Probably not a bad
> > thing for them to lookinto just for their own use, not because We ask
> > them to, but becuase that would really mess with the heads of the people
> > at (Insert 4 letter accronym here).
> >
> > question:
> >
> > how do the people who feel posesive towards tor think about this idea?
> >
> > -=Matt=-
> >
> > On 10/12/05, *Arrakistor* wrote
> > What if we designated some type of tor family specifically for p2p
> > content, and coordinated with the software developers?
> >
>
> If an anonymizing service based on Tor were integrated into some p2p
> project or if a fork of Tor were to devote itself to serving p2p, then
> that should only be encouraged by the current Tor community if
>
> 1. It didn't take away any current tor servers or tor resources.
>
> 2. It used another name and was clearly its own standalone effort.
>
> The reason for 1 is obvious. If the point is to make Tor more usable,
> then we shouldn't support a migration of its resources elsewhere.
>
> The reason for 2 should also be obvious. Tor is a neutral technology
> that allows privacy. Some people use their privacy for uses we want to
> support; others for uses we wish they wouldn't engage in. But, if
> something were called "Tor" and were devoted to p2p traffic then it
> would taint the whole Tor project. Don't get me wrong. p2p also has
> legitimate uses. But in the current climate anything remotely associated
> with file-sharing is assumed to be illegal. Let's not let that shadow be
> cast upon Tor. It has enough reputational problems already.
>
> Also, Tor is open source. If someone wants to take the code and change
> it to use their own farm of servers exclusively for p2p traffic then
> there's nothing the Tor community can do to stop them. I'm not
> suggesting we should try to stop them. Rather, I'm suggesting we insist
> that if someone does do that, then they should not call it "Tor" or
> anything confusingly similar.
>
> Brian
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/attachments/20051012/7dcf3d15/attachment.htm>