> Sorry, I meant "to run 50% of the nodes" Ok, but if we're stopping the NSA by forcing them to put down 0.5% of the world's economy to control half of the Tor

> Sorry, I meant "to run 50% of the nodes" Ok, but if we're stopping the NSA by forcing them to put down 0.5% of the world's economy to control half of the Tor network... then presumably the rest of the Tor network needs to put down more than 0.5% of the world's economy to hold majority? And if we're shrinking the fractions, don't we just come back to the same point again: making the ownership of the network a "resource democracy" means that whoever has the most resources will own the network: and that will be nation states. > the NSA is the least of Tor's worries currently What are you basing this on exactly? And even if we assume it's true, why aren't nation state surveillance operations the biggest worry? Namedropping NSA is for the most part just a placeholder for $state_surveillance. > it is way too cool to be knee-jerk anti-crypto at this point I don't think it's "knee-jerk anti-crypto" to question the sanity of introducing a crypto economy into the Tor network. I am personally skeptical of essentially any crypto currency in existence today, but I am not by default skeptical against the technology itself. I still think there's a tendency, as there is with any new technology and not just crypto, to shoe-horn it into use cases where it may not be sane to use it. All I'm saying is that from what I've understood so far, introducing a crypto-economy into Tor doesn't sound like anything else than basically giving access to whoever pays the most money -- and sure, you could say that's true today! Buying nodes gives access, that's what the entire article is about, but in that case maybe we should rather be looking at solutions where that is never the case, rather than just making the price higher.