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

On 1/8/13 10:40 PM, Moritz Bartl wrote: > I wrote a small incapable script [4] that visualizes how often a relay > is a "fast" relay over time. In its current form, it is not very > helpful, but slightly modified to output monthly overviews or just a > percentage figure per relay, it might already

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

Hi, On 23.07.2012 20:58, Roger Dingledine wrote: > We've lined up our first funder (BBG, aka http://www.voanews.com/), > and they're excited to have us start as soon as we can. They want to > sponsor 125+ fast exits. From what I understand, the reimbursement process is blocking on legal/contractu

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

Hi Roger, Thanks for your answer :) It's funny that you mention dfri.se, because they e-mailed me (and all swedish relay operators i believe) yesterday and I'm lurking in their IRC channel (and #tor) as I write this. I also managed to join the tor-relays list, so I've had a lot to read lately. I'm

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

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 01:23:57 -0400 grarpamp wrote: >>> 4) What exactly do we mean by diversity? >> >> I would look at this almost entirely from a jurisdictional and ISP level. I >> believe the biggest "sudden impact" threats to the tor network are going to >> be from legal changes (jurisdict

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

>> Is there any justification for a low-bandwidth Tor node? Other than the diversity of having more nodes around... seems from discussions here that slower nodes see less users. Which means they're not as likely to be blocked by content providers for user misbehavior. This can be valuable for the

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

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 05:49:34AM -0400, Motoko Kusanagi wrote: > I am very interested in running 100 Mbit (maybe even more) exit nodes at > 100$/month, however, a question immediately comes to mind: > When we say "100Mbit exit node", do we imply "really unmetered" traffic at > 100 Mbit, or do w

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

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 07:34:14PM +0100, mick wrote: > > We've lined up our first funder (BBG, aka http://www.voanews.com/), > > and they're excited to have us start as soon as we can. They want to > > sponsor 125+ fast exits. > > Forgive me, but what do they want in return? ("He who pays the > p

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

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:01:13PM -0400, Steve Snyder wrote: > >At the same time, much of our performance improvement comes from better > >load balancing -- that is, concentrating traffic on the relays that can > >handle it better. The result though is a direct tradeoff with relay > >diversity: on

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

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 06:32:30PM +0200, Julian Wissmann wrote: > we've got an offer for 10GBit >unmetered@750?, which is kind of sweet spot performance/buck wise and I >guess, that it could handle 8-12 Tor nodes performance wise to satisfy >the pipe. It would be a large number of high performance

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

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:21:01AM +0100, mick wrote: > Question for tor developers. How hard would it be to change the logic > (and syntax) of exit policy in tor to allow domain based formulations > like: > > reject *.gmail.com > reject *aol.com Very hard. https://trac.torproject.org/projects/t

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

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 07:31:42PM +, delber wrote: > What we have found though, is that several smaller (not-for-profits or > coops) ISPs would be happy to help the Tor network, provided there is a > clear legal boundary. Something that our not-for-profit would create. > The downside is that t

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

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 10:49:49AM -0400, Sam Whited wrote: > 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 s

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

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 01:50:20PM -0700, Mike Perry wrote: > > > > 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/ > > > > > I

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

Hi Roger, On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 02:58:54PM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote: > > Open questions we need to decide about: > > 1) What exactly would we pay for? > > I think the right way to do it is to offer to reimburse bandwidth/hosting > costs -- I don't want to get into the business of paying p

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

On 31.07.2012 12:21, mick wrote: > Question for tor developers. How hard would it be to change the logic > (and syntax) of exit policy in tor to allow domain based formulations > like: > > reject *.gmail.com > reject *aol.com We see webmail based spam reports from all kinds of addresses. The bett

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

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:51:35 -0400 Steve Snyder allegedly wrote: > Allowing exits from ports 80 and 443 will always carry the risk of > abuse complaints. > > It would be better to retain 80 and 443 as exit ports and just block > traffic to the Google/Yahoo/AOL/etc. mail servers but I don't how

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

On 07/30/2012 11:53 AM, Moritz Bartl wrote: On 30.07.2012 13:27, Moritz Bartl wrote: We have been kicked from FDC in the past With only port 80, 443, 554, and 1755 open, this might be different and worth a try. Same goes for the similar offer for shared 10 Gbps by Limehost. It wouldn't be

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

On 30.07.2012 13:27, Moritz Bartl wrote: > We have been kicked from FDC in the past With only port 80, 443, 554, and 1755 open, this might be different and worth a try. Same goes for the similar offer for shared 10 Gbps by Limehost. -- Moritz Bartl https://www.torservers.net/ __

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

> True but then you are simply using empty capacity of the others which is not > guaranteed to you. So if the other customers start pumping your > connection speed drops. Not necessarily if we are on a dedicated Gbit port (which we are at least at Axigy) and the ISP has enough upstream capacity.

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

On 30.07.2012, at 13:03, Moritz Bartl wrote: > On 30.07.2012 12:57, Andreas Fink wrote: >>> 109 Euro for Gbit in Romania (Voxility/Limehost) >>> $400 each for Gbit in Budapest and USA (Axigy)* >>> 300 Euro for 200 Mbps in Sweden >>> 375 Euro for 200TB (~800 Mbps) in Netherlands (NForce) >>> >>

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

On 30.07.2012 12:57, Andreas Fink wrote: >> 109 Euro for Gbit in Romania (Voxility/Limehost) >> $400 each for Gbit in Budapest and USA (Axigy)* >> 300 Euro for 200 Mbps in Sweden >> 375 Euro for 200TB (~800 Mbps) in Netherlands (NForce) >> > > You have to well differentiate here if you get shared

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

On 30.07.2012, at 12:54, Moritz Bartl wrote: > On 24.07.2012 00:09, Roger Dingledine wrote: >> - What do you currently pay for hosting/bandwidth, and how much bandwidth >> do you get for that? > > 109 Euro for Gbit in Romania (Voxility/Limehost) > $400 each for Gbit in Budapest and USA (Axigy)*

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

On 24.07.2012 00:09, Roger Dingledine wrote: > - What do you currently pay for hosting/bandwidth, and how much bandwidth > do you get for that? 109 Euro for Gbit in Romania (Voxility/Limehost) $400 each for Gbit in Budapest and USA (Axigy)* 300 Euro for 200 Mbps in Sweden 375 Euro for 200TB (~800

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

If I may be allowed to add my 2cents as a newbie... Just found the website https://torstatus.blutmagie.de Linked off the https://www.torservers.net site. If this is reliable, then stats would be easy to determine.List the say...top 5(random number) of each country and support them? If a

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

This seems (to me) like an obvious suggestion, so my apologies if it's already been thought up. Why not establish a team/scoreboard system, like those used for distributed computing and BitCoin mining? This elegantly solves a few problems while with minimal resource commitment from the Tor organi

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

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Roger Dingledine wrote: > Hello Andrew, > > I wanted to draw your attention to a thread I've started on the tor-relays > list: > https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2012-July/001433.html > > Hi Roger, I'm not too familiar with mailing lists, so hope

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

>> 4) What exactly do we mean by diversity? > > I would look at this almost entirely from a jurisdictional and ISP level. I > believe the biggest "sudden impact" threats to the tor network are going to > be from legal changes (jurisdictional, i.e. "save the children, nullroute > the nodes") and lo

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

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 02:36:32AM +, k...@damnfbi.tk wrote: > Hey all, > Has anyone contemplated pitching this towards hackerspaces running > their own fast nodes? I wouldn't recommend running an exit node on a network link that will make you sad if it goes away for a few days. Most hackersp

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

Excuse me, as I'm rather new to mailing lists an the sort, but I've been tailing the conversation on and off the last few days. I'm currently using Secured Servers through PheonixNAP as my dedicated provider. I've used them for roughly a year now and have had no real problems. They are located

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

> 1) What exactly would we pay for? > > Agree on 100+ mbps exit node funding. Also agree with Moritz's suggestion that there be a form that limits fund disbursement on a per-ISP level, to encourage ISP diversity (and contribute to the discovery of new "known good" ISPs for tor). *Continued* fundi

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

Andreas Fink: > On 26.07.2012, at 19:52, Andrew Lewman wrote: > >> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:05:53 + >> k...@damnfbi.tk wrote: >>> We should probably talk further then since I'm _in_ Iceland atm and >>> would also like to see a high capacity node here. >>> May I ask for your reasoning though? A

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

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:08:05 +0200 Andreas Fink wrote: > Traffic from Iceland is still relatively expensive. However we could > host some machines in other places where we interconnect on internet > exchanges. Is this true for IPv6 too? I've found asking for IPv6-only servers is almost free, be

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

On 26.07.2012, at 19:52, Andrew Lewman wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:05:53 + > k...@damnfbi.tk wrote: >> We should probably talk further then since I'm _in_ Iceland atm and >> would also like to see a high capacity node here. >> May I ask for your reasoning though? A lot of people on both

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

On Mon, 23 Jul 2012 14:58:54 -0400 Roger Dingledine allegedly wrote: > The result though is a direct tradeoff > with relay diversity: on today's network, clients choose one of the > fastest 5 exit relays around 25-30% of the time, and 80% of their > choices come from a pool of 40-50 relays. > htt

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

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 07:05:41 -0400 Mike allegedly wrote: > 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 m

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

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:05:53 + k...@damnfbi.tk wrote: > We should probably talk further then since I'm _in_ Iceland atm and > would also like to see a high capacity node here. > May I ask for your reasoning though? A lot of people on both sides of > the pond have believed that IMMI

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

Roger Dingledine: > - 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 diver

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

On 26.07.2012 18:05, k...@damnfbi.tk wrote: > Hi Moritz, > We should probably talk further then since I'm _in_ Iceland atm and > would also like to see a high capacity node here. > May I ask for your reasoning though? Country/legal diversity. > Have you tried talking to DataCell? No, I have not

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

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:01:13 -0400 (EDT) "Steve Snyder" allegedly wrote: > Is there any justification for a low-bandwidth Tor node? And if so, > what is the practical minimum bandwidth needed to actually see any > traffic? Yes. I run one. And have run two (or three at one time). I currently run

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

Hi Moritz, We should probably talk further then since I'm _in_ Iceland atm and would also like to see a high capacity node here. May I ask for your reasoning though? A lot of people on both sides of the pond have believed that IMMI has been passed here alrea

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

Roger Dingledine arma at mit.edu Mon Jul 23 18:58:54 UTC 2012 [snip] >At the same time, much of our performance improvement comes from better >load balancing -- that is, concentrating traffic on the relays that can >handle it better. The result though is a direct tradeoff with relay >diversity: on

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

On 26.07.2012 16:14, Moritz Bartl wrote: > That said, we should discuss and come up with a good organizational > structure to reimburse people. Personally, I would only sponsor 100 > Mbit/s or more (or maybe even only Gbit). To make this more explicit: I opt to have 13 organizations/people runnin

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

Hi, What can I say that hasn't been said by others before... :) We are in contact with reliable ISPs with endpoints in various countries. They would be willing to cooperate on exits at these locations. We have not yet talked about prices. I would say we (as in Torservers.net) are in the position

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

Just throwing my 2 cents in, we're running loki on a decade old dell pe1950 p3 (32bit) w/ 2GB of ram. We average about 5.2 Mbps of traffic. That said I'm looking forward to seeing what increases a 64 c

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

On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:48:16PM -0700, Sriakhil Gogineni wrote: > Ball park quotes we got were 99$ / 100 Mbps or $599 / 1000 Mbps for transit > for a single 1U... we'll see if we can get something better... That's a good quote for 1Gbps. > Would this be helpful / viable option for a Tor exit n

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

Hello! I saw this posted on slashdot and think this is an excellent way to donate some of our time and expertise, especially considering Internet access has been declared a human right by the UN. We currently colocate with a provider and will be inquiring with them if they are OK with hosting Tor

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

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 07/25/2012 12:34 PM, Julian Wissmann wrote: > Please don't forget non profits, like 501(c)3, under which > probably many hackerspaces in the US fall or the german e.V., like > Zwiebelfreunde e.V., who run torservers.net >

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

Am 25.07.2012 um 21:31 schrieb delber: > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 05:14:44PM -0400, Andrew Lewis wrote: >> $100 is not going to cut it most likely, even for only 100 mbit >> traffic only. Most providers are really antsy about spam/DMCA reports, >> and aren't willing to deal with it for that cheap.

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

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 05:14:44PM -0400, Andrew Lewis wrote: > $100 is not going to cut it most likely, even for only 100 mbit > traffic only. Most providers are really antsy about spam/DMCA reports, > and aren't willing to deal with it for that cheap. I'd suspect that > you are looking at the $15

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

I largely agree with Sam, I just want to make some additions, here. > 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,

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

Hi Roger, list > > I want to draw your attention to a thread I've started on the tor-relays > list: > https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2012-July/001433.html > > In short, we have a funder who wants to sponsor more and faster Tor > exits, and we're brainstorming about how to use t

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

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

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

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 se

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

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

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

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 _mus

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

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-p

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

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

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

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? Ann

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

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/ma

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

Hey all, Have you contemplated sending this over to the hackerspaces list? They are often: geographically diverse can be be incorporated or non-profit understand or have heard of Tor usually pay for a decently fast connection for their space already are familiar with hosting servi

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

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 02:58:54PM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote: > Next steps: [...] > Then I'll send individual emails to exit relay operators pointing them > to it and asking for their feedback (on the list or private, whichever > they prefer). I'll also try to get some sense of how much their h

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

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 05:14:44PM -0400, Andrew Lewis wrote: > $100 is not going to cut it most likely That could be. I look forward to learning more about the options. Another approach to explore is subsidizing bandwidth, that is, if you find a place that's $175/mo we can make it like it's $75/m

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

Roger, I used to run a larger exit node a while back, and have a few quick comments. $100 is not going to cut it most likely, even for only 100 mbit traffic only. Most providers are really antsy about spam/DMCA reports, and aren't willing to deal with it for that cheap. I'd suspect that you ar

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

For a few years now, funders have been asking if they can pay Tor to run more relays. I kept telling them their money was better spent on code and design improvements: https://blog.torproject.org/blog/why-tor-is-slow https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/roadmaps/Tor/Performance since a