📅 Original date posted:2014-12-11
📝 Original message:[...]
> And, on the flip side if the host is persistently behind tor, even
> with some watermarkable behaviour, their privacy is protected. So
> making sure that hosts can continually use tor (or similar systems)
> should be the higher priority. (And, of course, not reimplementing
> tor leverages the millions of dollars of investment and dozens of
> subject matter experts working on that system).
>
Reimplementing Tor would not only mean to lose all the investment that
ran into Tor, but also to lose a large user base. We can see this with
TorCoin. Still, the fact that Bitcoin is a use case for Tor which
measurably shows some limits where it is not fully clear if Tor or
Bitcoin is to be blamed does not only mean that both projects may
have to evolve in order to properly solve the issue, but also that the
means of interfacing between both projects may have to be
extended. Ideally, in a way which does not require to run a separate
Tor and/or Bitcoin network in order to work, but which will be generic
enough to satisfy both sides' need to still work in a standalone
manner.
But I do see huge merit in exploring better ways of synergy between
the projects. For example, Tor's hardcoded circuit length may be
considered as a hack which was only necessary due to the lack of a
suitable resource compensation mechanism. Which is something that is
available with Bitcoin.
Best regards,
Isidor
Isidor Zeuner [ARCHIVE] /
npub1wz…2jvxz
2023-06-07 15:27:39
in reply to nevent1q…lwfs
Author Public Key
npub1wz2sm8h4ylh9dn28688vjzwrmhaxnh3jl04p8jk3qeq7umwf8cus72jvxzPublished at
2023-06-07 15:27:39Event JSON
{
"id": "375dc148b62364ef5862ebe70a0a1248b60c8e3721f2203acd46de7ca7d4c03d",
"pubkey": "70950d9ef527ee56cd47d1cec909c3ddfa69de32fbea13cad10641ee6dc93e39",
"created_at": 1686151659,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"aa6f4a583b3a6686edd3886328939a36834ecf395b67c0a67ebdec900123a41a",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"80a36ea6007dfc192bcd7e56c60a20ebdfde684808c73380d03249cc93ca0bae",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f2c95df3766562e3b96b79a0254881c59e8639f23987846961cf55412a77f6f2"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-12-11\n📝 Original message:[...]\n\u003e And, on the flip side if the host is persistently behind tor, even\n\u003e with some watermarkable behaviour, their privacy is protected. So\n\u003e making sure that hosts can continually use tor (or similar systems)\n\u003e should be the higher priority. (And, of course, not reimplementing\n\u003e tor leverages the millions of dollars of investment and dozens of\n\u003e subject matter experts working on that system).\n\u003e\n\nReimplementing Tor would not only mean to lose all the investment that\nran into Tor, but also to lose a large user base. We can see this with\nTorCoin. Still, the fact that Bitcoin is a use case for Tor which\nmeasurably shows some limits where it is not fully clear if Tor or\nBitcoin is to be blamed does not only mean that both projects may\nhave to evolve in order to properly solve the issue, but also that the\nmeans of interfacing between both projects may have to be\nextended. Ideally, in a way which does not require to run a separate\nTor and/or Bitcoin network in order to work, but which will be generic\nenough to satisfy both sides' need to still work in a standalone\nmanner.\n\nBut I do see huge merit in exploring better ways of synergy between\nthe projects. For example, Tor's hardcoded circuit length may be\nconsidered as a hack which was only necessary due to the lack of a\nsuitable resource compensation mechanism. Which is something that is\navailable with Bitcoin.\n\nBest regards,\n\nIsidor",
"sig": "399f3e5f5c1dc7db1c054a8c5736723469e7480db910055df097c9066c587f9dc0304c25c4315de3f90a8efa59d645f19c0fb9351ac5ef8552f59ad1acf3c9d6"
}