• qwerty@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Tor relays only relay the traffic, they don’t store anything (other than HSDirs, but that’s miniscule). Session relays have to store all the messages, pictures, files until the user comes online and retrieves them. Obviously all that data would be too much to store on every single node, so instead it is spread across only 5-7 nodes at a time. If all of those nodes ware to go offline at the same time, messages would be lost, so there has to be some mechanism that discourages taking nodes offline without giving a notice period to the network. Without the staking mechanism, an attacker could spin up a bunch of nodes and then take them all down for relatively cheap, and leave users’ messages undelivered. It also incentivizes honest operators to ensure their node’s reliability and rewards them for it, which, even if you run your node purely for altruistic reasons, is always a nice bonus, so I don’t really see any downside to it, especially since the end user doesn’t need to interact with it at all.

    • Natanael@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      22 hours ago

      I2P already did that with their DHT network (remember DHT?). I2P Bote uses that for messaging

      • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Eh, no. A DHT doesn’t solve offline storage of data, when the source node is already offline, and the target node is not yet online.

        • Natanael@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          It does temporarily, on the order of hours to days. It’s not designed to use the network for long term storage, just message passing