exit node only server

[clifnor at warpmail.net]

Nato Welch writes:

> This is where I get to thinking that a balancing act between client
> use and exit use should have been designed in, much like the
> tit-for-tat algorithm built into bittorrent. Sure, anybody can build
> their own app to cheat the protocol, but the majority will just
> install what's easiest to find, provided it works for them.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I second (or third?) this
idea.
There are a number of impelling reasons for changing the Tor
architecture to
a tit-for-tat construction:

1. It will ameliorate the inescapable FACT of human greed--if you wish
to use resources you will have to contribute corresponding resources. I
believe
that without building in this ameliorative factor, Tor networks will
always
suffer from severe response problems. The BitTorrent designer apparently
knew
how deeply ingrained the greedy human response to freebies is, and
designed his system to
offset it. 

2. It will encourage exapansion of the current (experimental) Tor
network,
thus yielding data points otherwise unavailable since there are
undoubtedly 
users who would be willing to contribute some asset as a fee
for using the Tor network BUT cannot host a permanent server. Shutting
these people out
from contributing seems a waste of both computing resources and good
will.

3. It MAY reduce the legal exposure of users by putting all users on
more
equal ground--every user who runs a client will also be running a
server.

In closing, I think it highly unlikely that Tor will ever be practical
on
a scale much larger than the current experiment without changing to a
tit-for-tat
design. The facts that:

Some people are almost always greedy
Some people are sometimes greedy
No one is NEVER greedy

means that Tor networks will ALWAYS be resource-poor unless
tit-for-tat is at least semi-automatic (clearly, the architecture should
allow for server-only
nodes).

clifnor

-- 
  
  clifnor at warpmail.net