|
|
@@ -152,6 +152,29 @@
|
|
|
maybe it's an argument in favor of a more penny-counting reputation
|
|
|
approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
+3.7. What is the appropriate resource balance for servers vs. clients?
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ If we build a good incentive system, we'll still need to tune it
|
|
|
+ to provide the right bandwidth allocation -- if we reserve too much
|
|
|
+ bandwidth for fast servers, then we're wasting some potential, but we
|
|
|
+ if we reserve too little, then fewer people will opt to become servers.
|
|
|
+ How do we find the right balance?
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ One answer is that it doesn't have to be perfect: we can err on the
|
|
|
+ side of providing extra resources to servers, then we will achieve our
|
|
|
+ desired goal: when people complain about speed, we can tell them to
|
|
|
+ run a server, and they will in fact get better performance. In fact,
|
|
|
+ finding an optimum balance is especially hard because it's a moving
|
|
|
+ target: the better our incentive mechanism (and the lower the barrier
|
|
|
+ to setup), the more servers there will be.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+3.8. Anonymity attack: fast connections probably come from good servers.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+3.9. How do we allocate bandwidth over the course of a second?
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
4. Sample designs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.1. Two classes of service for circuits.
|
|
|
@@ -220,7 +243,7 @@
|
|
|
we know that we can get away with poor performance for people that
|
|
|
aren't listed in the directory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-5. Types of attacks.
|
|
|
+5. Recommendations and next steps.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
|
-5.1. Anonymity attacks:
|
|
|
|
Roger Dingledine