Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Discontinue tor relay operator role #363

Closed
Emzy opened this issue Feb 9, 2022 · 6 comments
Closed

Discontinue tor relay operator role #363

Emzy opened this issue Feb 9, 2022 · 6 comments
Assignees
Labels
a:proposal https://bisq.wiki/Proposals re:roles was:approved

Comments

@Emzy
Copy link

Emzy commented Feb 9, 2022

This is a Bisq Network proposal. Please familiarize yourself with the submission and review process.

We support the Tor network right now with 4 Tor relay nodes with a total for 19.06 MiB/s advertised bandwidth.
My proposal is the discontinuation of the tor relay operator role.
I would argue that the traffic from the Bisq Network alone is a net positive for Tor, better anonymization for all.
AFAIK there is no bandwidth problem in the Tor network. Also 19Mbit/s is not really much.

I would prefer to discontinue the role before we starting to expand it.
There are new people who would like to run tor nodes for Bisq. I think this gives the wrong incentives. It would be better to get people run services direct for Bisq, instead of indirect services.
See relay operator role: bisq-network/roles#72

An option to additionally support Tor would be to tell our users to run a bridge if they can.
There seems to be a need for Tor bridges at the moment.

I would like to ask the DAO for the final decision on this.

If you support this proposal to discontinue tor relay operator role, please up vote the DAO proposal, otherwise down vote it.

@Emzy
Copy link
Author

Emzy commented Feb 9, 2022

A discussion on this proposal is appreciated.

@pazza83 pazza83 added re:roles a:proposal https://bisq.wiki/Proposals labels Feb 9, 2022
@chimp1984
Copy link

chimp1984 commented Feb 9, 2022

I have no stroong opinion, but one option would be to have a limited budget we are willing to spend on that? I think it gives the right signal that Bisq DAO is funding some tor nodes as we heavily depend on Tor.

@sqrrm
Copy link
Member

sqrrm commented Feb 11, 2022

I think it's a good thing for bisq as a project to support some tor nodes. It's right to support it since bisq depends on the tor network, at least for now, and it also shows other projects that it can be done.

I'm quite happy to retire my nodes though and let some more experienced ops ppl run better nodes.

@Emzy
Copy link
Author

Emzy commented Feb 22, 2022

edcd47dc4c3e8acca56b81740b4acc8fcd37a7960ec4cbfa7af036a6208ab995

@pazza83
Copy link

pazza83 commented Mar 6, 2022

This proposal was accepted by DAO vote in cycle 33

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
a:proposal https://bisq.wiki/Proposals re:roles was:approved
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants
@Emzy @sqrrm @chimp1984 @pazza83 and others