Op 12/07/15 om 23:48 schreef John Brooks:
Hello!
George and I, along with the other participants of this hidden services
meeting, have written a proposal for the idea to merge hidden service
directories and introduction points into the same entity along with proposal
224.
Comments are encourage
> On 21 Aug 2015, at 04:36, s7r wrote:
>
> If we merge introduction points with HSDirs, we have no option but to
> use the same introduction points, regardless how many INTRODUCE2 cells
> we get through them, until the new shared-RNG consensus value (24
> hours normally, in case nothing bad happ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
Worth mentioning, after #15745 we rotate the introduction points after
between 16384 and 32768 (random) introductions and/or a lifetime of 18
to 24 hours (random).
If we merge introduction points with HSDirs, we have no option but to
use the sa
Michael Rogers writes:
> On 12/07/15 22:48, John Brooks wrote:
>> 1.3. Other effects on proposal 224
>>
>>An adversarial introduction point is not significantly more capable than a
>>hidden service directory under proposal 224. The differences are:
>>
>> 1. The introduction point m
On 12/07/15 22:48, John Brooks wrote:
> 1.3. Other effects on proposal 224
>
>An adversarial introduction point is not significantly more capable than a
>hidden service directory under proposal 224. The differences are:
>
> 1. The introduction point maintains a long-lived circuit wit
> FWIW, I was running a simulation of this algorithm with the first week
> of July's consensuses when Isis posted the following way smarter
> algorithm:
>
>> A better algorithm would be a Consistent Hashring, modified to dynamically
>> allocate replications in proportion to fraction of total bandw
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:56 PM, isis wrote:
> Aaron Johnson transcribed 2.1K bytes:
>> > > That seems easy to fix. Make the number of Introduction Points the same
>> > > as it was before and make them be selected in a bandwidth-weight
>> > > way. There is no cost to this. You need IPs to be onli
Aaron Johnson transcribed 2.1K bytes:
> > > That seems easy to fix. Make the number of Introduction Points the same
> > > as it was before and make them be selected in a bandwidth-weight
> > > way. There is no cost to this. You need IPs to be online, and so
> > > whatever number was used in the pas
>> That seems easy to fix. Make the number of Introduction Points the same as
>> it was before and make them be selected in a bandwidth-weight way. There is
>> no cost to this. You need IPs to be online, and so whatever number was used
>> in the past will yield the same availability now. And ban
> On Jul 20, 2015, at 4:03 PM, John Brooks wrote:
>
> A. Johnson wrote:
>
>>> This proposal doubles the default number of IPs and reduces the “cost"
>>> of being an IP since the probability of being selected is no longer
>>> bandwidth-weighted. Is this a fair tradeoff for the performance
>>> i
A. Johnson wrote:
>> This proposal doubles the default number of IPs and reduces the “cost"
>> of being an IP since the probability of being selected is no longer
>> bandwidth-weighted. Is this a fair tradeoff for the performance
>> improvement?
>
> That seems easy to fix. Make the number of Int
Nicholas Hopper wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 4:48 PM, John Brooks
> wrote:
>> Comments are encouraged, especially if there are downsides or side
>> effects
>> that we haven’t written about yet, or that you have a different opinion
>> on.
>> The intent is that we can decide to do this before
Hi Aaron,
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 4:54 PM, A. Johnson
wrote:
>> This proposal doubles the default number of IPs and reduces the "cost"
>> of being an IP since the probability of being selected is no longer
>> bandwidth-weighted. Is this a fair tradeoff for the performance
>> improvement?
>
> Tha
> This proposal doubles the default number of IPs and reduces the "cost"
> of being an IP since the probability of being selected is no longer
> bandwidth-weighted. Is this a fair tradeoff for the performance
> improvement?
That seems easy to fix. Make the number of Introduction Points the same a
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 4:48 PM, John Brooks
wrote:
>
> Comments are encouraged, especially if there are downsides or side effects
> that we haven’t written about yet, or that you have a different opinion on.
> The intent is that we can decide to do this before implementing proposal
> 224, so they
teor wrote:
>
>> On 13 Jul 2015, at 07:48 , John Brooks
>> wrote:
>
>> 4.2. Restriction on the number of intro points and impact on load
>> balancing
>>
>> One drawback of this proposal is that the number of introduction points
>> of a
>> hidden service is now a constant global paramete
> On 13 Jul 2015, at 07:48 , John Brooks wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> George and I, along with the other participants of this hidden services
> meeting, have written a proposal for the idea to merge hidden service
> directories and introduction points into the same entity along with proposal
> 224.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
arma - isn't prop 246 already taken?
Filename: 246-hs-guard-discovery.txt
Title: Defending Against Guard Discovery Attacks using Vanguards
Author: George Kadianakis
Created: 2015-07-10
Status: Draft
On 7/13/2015 1:12 AM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
>
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 05:48:12PM -0400, John Brooks wrote:
> Filename: xxx-merge-hsdir-and-intro.txt
> Title: Merging Hidden Service Directories and Introduction Points
> Author: John Brooks, George Kadianakis
> Created: 2015-07-12
Thanks! I have added it as proposal 246.
--Roger
_
Hello!
George and I, along with the other participants of this hidden services
meeting, have written a proposal for the idea to merge hidden service
directories and introduction points into the same entity along with proposal
224.
Comments are encouraged, especially if there are downsides or side
20 matches
Mail list logo
