[tahoe-lafs-trac-stream] [Tahoe-LAFS] #1010: anonymous client mode

[Tahoe-LAFS]

#1010: anonymous client mode
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
     Reporter:  duck     |      Owner:  warner
         Type:           |     Status:  new
  enhancement            |
     Priority:  minor    |  Milestone:  1.12.0
    Component:  code-    |    Version:  1.6.1
  network                |   Keywords:  privacy anonymity docs anti-
   Resolution:           |  censorship forward-compatibility i2p-collab i2p
Launchpad Bug:           |  tor-protocol
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Comment (by warner):

 From today's devchat, folks seemed ok with my proposal, and with omitting
 the other three items (constraints on tub.location hostnames,
 tub.socks_port, and forbidding pure-clients from listening).

 However Zooko (and others) pointed out that "anonymous" is not the best
 name for this flag (it's inaccurate, imprecise, and carries negative
 connotations for a lot of folks outside our community). `private`, or
 `private-ip` seems better:

 * Tor/I2P can protect your IP address
 * servers can still figure out they're dealing with the same client as
 last time (e.g. you always start by fetching the same rootcap)
 * the !IntroducerClient will use a persistent TubID, so the Introducer
 (server) knows they're seeing the same client as last time
 * when we add Accounting, the client's accounting pubkey will (probably)
 be persistent, making it immediately obvious to servers that they're
 dealing with the same client as last time

 Switching to a term that makes it clear that we're specifically protecting
 the IP address means that we don't need to include #2384 in its scope
 (randomized TubIDs).

 Do people prefer `private = true`, or `private-ip = true` ? Or something
 else?

--
Ticket URL: <https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1010#comment:65>
Tahoe-LAFS <https://Tahoe-LAFS.org>
secure decentralized storage