Interoperating with p2p traffic

[Matt Thorne]

azurious is helping to develop a patch that allows the use of the 1p2
network. hopefully we should see a drop in bittorrent use, althought I would
guess that this wont help for people who use a different program. Maybe
those who want to use p2p over anonymous networks will start using Az.

On 10/12/05, Matt Thorne <mlthorne at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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/e4545248/attachment.htm>