Re: [tor-relays] Call for discussion: turning funding into more exit relays

[Mike Perry]

Thus spake Nils Vogels (bacardic...@gmail.com):

> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Mike Perry wrote:
> 
> > Thus spake k...@damnfbi.tk (k...@damnfbi.tk):
> >
> > > Hey all,
> > > Have you contemplated sending this over to the hackerspaces list?
> >
> > There exists THE list for hackerspaces? Well hot damn. Are these them:
> > http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/
> >
> > Also, how do we recognize reputable Hackerspaces from "Sketchy bunch of
> > d00dz who think it will be totally awesome fun to pwn a bunch of Tor
> > users?" Should we check for previous reliable Tor relays from them?
> > Should we just not care?
> 
> It's funny this comes up now :) I know for a fact that most Dutch
> hackerspaces either run a tor node, or have a member running a Tor node.
> Their motives have never been questioned, so why start now :)

Yeah, I was asking a subset of Roger's parent question: "Should we fund
new relays by new people, fund new relays by existing community members,
or fund upgrades to existing relays by existing community members?"

I think if we just start dumping money on total strangers who have never
run Tor exits before, it is less likely to lead to a stable outcome
where those exits continue to exist.

> In most countries there is a foundation covering multiple hackerspaces,
> these are usually where you'd want to start. If you need some more contacts
> in the Benelux and UK area, I can lend a hand.

Good suggestion. I do generally agree that hackerspaces are a great
untapped potential for running more Tor nodes. It is definitely
something that should be explored. Not sure who (if anyone) is tasked
with driving this whole exit sponsoring initiative yet, though.

I also like the idea of favoring larger, better organized hackerspaces
that are more likely to be able to continue to manage their exits over
the long term.


-- 
Mike Perry


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Call for discussion: turning funding into more exit relays

[Rejo Zenger]

Hi,

I am not in the position to comment on what would be good for the network, 
there are others more knowledgeable - like yourself. There's not much to add to 
your remarks. Having said that, I can comment on what I would change for me.

I am currently providing a fast exit node on a colocated server I already was 
running. It's using spare traffic and bandwidth. Current limitations are based 
on the policy "use anything that's left, as long as it doesn't cost me any 
bucks". I am more than happy to spend time and effort in running relays, but I 
don't have the budget to pay for more.

> 2) Should we fund existing relays or new ones?

I would be able to help out with both. For me there would be at least three 
scenario's. 

1) If there's reimbursement for (additional traffic on) existing relays, I 
would be able to add more traffic a month on my current relay. I would increase 
the limits on bandwidth and traffic. That way, an existing relay would be able 
to do more traffic. 

2) If there's reimbursement for everything that is needed to run a relay, I 
would be able to add a new server. I would find other ISP's that sell VPS's or, 
when I would be able to get a new box, I could add another one at my current 
ISP. That way, a new relay would be added.

3) If there's reimbursement for even more, I would set up a non-proft 
foundation running multiple nodes. These nodes would ideally be spread amongst 
a couple of ISP's. That way, I would be able to add a couple of new relays.

> More generally, we need to consider sustainability. Our current exit
> relay funding is for a period of 12 months, and while there's reason to
> think we will find continued support, the Tor network must not end up
> addicted to external funding. So long as everybody is running an exit
> relay because they want to save the world, I think we should be fine.

Given the above scenario's the sustainability largely depends on the scale. For 
example, when I would be reimbursed for the additional costs of the additional 
traffic, I can easily back down after 12 months. When running a foundation it 
would be more difficult to simply quit just because the sponsoring comes to a 
halt. On the other hand, a foundation would be run by multiple people, and as 
long as there is money to cover the costs of the relays, it would be a lot more 
stable than a number of smaller nodes.

> 7) How do we audit / track the sponsored relays?
> 
> How should we check that your 100mbit relay is really working? What do
> we measure to confirm its capacity? To a first approximation I'm fine
> assuming that nobody is going to try to cheat (say, by colluding with
> an ISP to write legit-looking invoices but then just split the money).

And what happens if there's doubt about the node someone is running? For a 
starter, maybe a solution would be: individuals are reimbursed a limited amount 
only, where larger amounts is available to legally registered foundations. 

-- 
Rejo Zenger .  . 0x21DBEFD4 . 
GPG encrypted e-mail preferred . +31.6.39642738 . @rejozenger



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Call for discussion: turning funding into more exit relays

[Jon]

 I am impressed with the amount of good discussion so far, in stead of the
' mine is better than yours ' syndrome or ' i know more than you ' .

Along with what has been discussed and beginning proposals so far, in the
infancy here, What about finding a way, if not to much of a headache,
trying to utilize some of the exit relays we already have that their
allocated bandwidth is not being used now.

I know their are some factor that need to be considered, and the latest is
the balancing that was recently incorporated into the Tor system, which
was  brought up in earlier threads.

It would be nice for those people that already have a server running, that
have the sources to be able to use more of their bandwidth.

I can only speak for my self here, but I know that I had hoped that when I
started a exit relay, that more of my bandwidth would be used. Which at the
present on a dedicated server is at very minimal usage..

Just food for thought  :)

Jon
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Call for discussion: turning funding into more exit relays

[Sam Whited]

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Roger Dingledine  wrote:
> Open questions we need to decide about:
>
> 1) What exactly would we pay for?
>

As you said, reimbursing users for hosting is probably the best idea
here, however, we also don't want to get in the situation where users
feel that they _must_ be reimbursed to run an exit relay. What happens
if the sponsors funding dries up in a year and no one wants to donate
bandwidth anymore?

Perhaps only registered companies should be sponsored — as much as I
hate to limit the scope of the project, I think this (might) prevent
abuse to a certain extent. Individuals who wanted to run an exit relay
of their own could still do so, they would just have to use some of
the money to form an LLC (or whatever their countries equivalent is if
the scope of this project extends outside of the US). This gives them
a bit more of an incentive to separate their Tor node form their
personal server/computing resources (in the form of limited
liability), which they should probably be doing anyways.

> I think we should aim to constrain ourselves to talking about >=100mbit
> exits
>

I disagree; as others have said, lots of 10mbit relays will do as much
for the network as a few 100mbit relays. Most peoples use case is
simply checking email, browsing the web, reading news, etc. which
don't necessarily need a huge 100mbit relay.

> 2) Should we fund existing relays or new ones?
>

It's probably not wise to distinguish between the two. If you only
fund new relays, you may see a lot of old relays shut down (and then
restarted as "new relays" to get funding). So you might as well just
sponsor both. More thoughts on this in a bit.

> - Should we prefer big collectives like torservers, noisetor, CCC,
> dfri.se, and riseup (which can get great bulk rates on bandwidth and are
> big enough to have relationships with local lawyers and ISPs), or should
> we prefer individuals since they maximize our operator diversity? I think
> "explore both approaches" is a fine first plan.
>

"Explore both approaches" sounds good; I think we'll find that
operator diversity leads to a healthier (more anonymous) network.
Again, I lean towards small guys that will run a few nodes at
different data centers, but not Sole proprietorship's.

> - For existing relays who pay for hosting…

Picking a certain monthly transfer target might solve this; so
existing relays that are fast could apply for aid, and it would give
slower relays incentive to speed up. The challenge then becomes, where
do we set this cutoff? I'm inclined to think it could be kept
relatively low and still be very beneficial for the network.


> the Tor network must not end up
> addicted to external funding. So long as everybody is running an exit
> relay because they want to save the world, I think we should be fine.
>

This is the core of the entire discussion. We might also consider only
funding relays in areas where we need the diversity by taking into
account…

> There's network diversity (AS / upstream network topology), organization
> and operator diversity, jurisdictional (country) diversity, funding
> diversity, data-center diversity, and more.
>

…this stuff.

>
> 7) How do we audit / track the sponsored relays?
>
> How should we check that your 100mbit relay is really working? What do
> we measure to confirm its capacity? To a first approximation I'm fine
> assuming that nobody is going to try to cheat (say, by colluding with
> an ISP to write legit-looking invoices but then just split the money).
>

Probably better to monitor this carefully from the get-go. Sponsors
like to know where their money is going, and continued funding could
hinge on it.

> Then I'll send individual emails to exit relay operators pointing them
> to it and asking for their feedback
>

Consider asking some of the faster / more stable non-exit relay
operators as well. Many of these folks (myself included) have run an
exit relay at one point or another and stopped—or want to run an exit
but won't—because of the financial burden, or because of legal
ramifications, etc.

Some of them might want to run an exit relay, or change their existing
nodes to exit relays if they could only get a bit of funding to help
cover bandwidth and separate their personal resources / business from
their exit node(s) (via a new server, or a separate business entity,
etc.)


Best,
Sam


-- 
Sam Whited
pub 4096R/EC2C9934

SamWhited.com
s...@samwhited.com
404.492.6008
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Call for discussion: turning funding into more exit relays

[kupo]

Hey all,
Has anyone contemplated pitching this towards hackerspaces running their 
own fast nodes?
While most have a decent connection to support their space and users I'm 
sure it would pair well and also allow them to supplement their meager 
income. Plus if they're already incorporated or non-prof it allows them 
a bit more protection from random LEO problems and a common community to 
draw experience from.

-kupo

___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Call for discussion: turning funding into more exit relays

[Mike]

In my short experience of running an exit relay on a cheap vps I can say.
You can do this on less than 30 a month. It might not be true 100 mbit 24/7
but does that really matter? If you get enough interested parties it should
balance out right?
For surfing/email etc 10 mbit is plenty I think? Mine averaged around 10
mbit/s 24/7 which isn't bad for a cheap unlimited
vps. Who doesn't like a fast ToR network but the reality is, those speeds
are perfectly acceptable for most of what
ToR users do. If for some reason you need to upload a few gigs of leaked
files, than force the network to connect to one of the faster relays. (but
even still there are a lot residential connections that can't utilize the
full upstream bandwidth the exit offers anyway)
If you lock the exit ports down, there should not be any DMCA issues with
the provider and you.
I never was called out for issues with spam. Forum admins who deal with
spam have several ways of dealing with it. So unless someone decides to use
your exit for email spam and a lot of it. I wouldn't worry about the spam
shutting
down any exit relays. Haven't read of that on the list yet actually. DMCA
will indeed make your provider not like you.
in closing, don't discredit the cheaper solutions. They do work just fine
and you don't need a pocket of money to throw at something.
Telling the provider what you plan on doing and educating them works
wonders as well. It has for me at least.



On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Nils Vogels  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Mike Perry wrote:
>
>> Thus spake k...@damnfbi.tk (k...@damnfbi.tk):
>>
>> > Hey all,
>> > Have you contemplated sending this over to the hackerspaces list?
>>
>> There exists THE list for hackerspaces? Well hot damn. Are these them:
>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/
>
>
> Yeah, that's the one :-)
>
>
>> Is there a specific sub-list we should focus on? Announce? Discuss?
>> Other?
>>
>
> Probably the main list, possibly discuss.
>
>
>>
>> Also, how do we recognize reputable Hackerspaces from "Sketchy bunch of
>> d00dz who think it will be totally awesome fun to pwn a bunch of Tor
>> users?" Should we check for previous reliable Tor relays from them?
>> Should we just not care?
>>
>
> It's funny this comes up now :) I know for a fact that most Dutch
> hackerspaces either run a tor node, or have a member running a Tor node.
> Their motives have never been questioned, so why start now :)
>
> In most countries there is a foundation covering multiple hackerspaces,
> these are usually where you'd want to start. If you need some more contacts
> in the Benelux and UK area, I can lend a hand.
> --
> Simple guidelines to happiness:
> Work like you don't need the money,
> Love like your heart has never been broken and
> Dance like no one can see you.
>
> ___
> tor-relays mailing list
> tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays
>
>
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Call for discussion: turning funding into more exit relays

[Mike Perry]

Thus spake k...@damnfbi.tk (k...@damnfbi.tk):

> Hey all,
> Have you contemplated sending this over to the hackerspaces list?

There exists THE list for hackerspaces? Well hot damn. Are these them:
http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/

Is there a specific sub-list we should focus on? Announce? Discuss?
Other?

Also, how do we recognize reputable Hackerspaces from "Sketchy bunch of
d00dz who think it will be totally awesome fun to pwn a bunch of Tor
users?" Should we check for previous reliable Tor relays from them?
Should we just not care?


-- 
Mike Perry


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays

Re: [tor-relays] Call for discussion: turning funding into more exit relays

[Nils Vogels]

Hi,

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Mike Perry wrote:

> Thus spake k...@damnfbi.tk (k...@damnfbi.tk):
>
> > Hey all,
> > Have you contemplated sending this over to the hackerspaces list?
>
> There exists THE list for hackerspaces? Well hot damn. Are these them:
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/


Yeah, that's the one :-)


> Is there a specific sub-list we should focus on? Announce? Discuss?
> Other?
>

Probably the main list, possibly discuss.


>
> Also, how do we recognize reputable Hackerspaces from "Sketchy bunch of
> d00dz who think it will be totally awesome fun to pwn a bunch of Tor
> users?" Should we check for previous reliable Tor relays from them?
> Should we just not care?
>

It's funny this comes up now :) I know for a fact that most Dutch
hackerspaces either run a tor node, or have a member running a Tor node.
Their motives have never been questioned, so why start now :)

In most countries there is a foundation covering multiple hackerspaces,
these are usually where you'd want to start. If you need some more contacts
in the Benelux and UK area, I can lend a hand.
-- 
Simple guidelines to happiness:
Work like you don't need the money,
Love like your heart has never been broken and
Dance like no one can see you.
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays