PAR: Payment for Anonymous Routing

  • Elli Androulaki
  • Mariana Raykova
  • Shreyas Srivatsan
  • Angelos Stavrou
  • Steven M. Bellovin
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5134)


Despite the growth of the Internet and the increasing concern for privacy of online communications, current deployments of anonymization networks depend on a very small set of nodes that volunteer their bandwidth. We believe that the main reason is not disbelief in their ability to protect anonymity, but rather the practical limitations in bandwidth and latency that stem from limited participation. This limited participation, in turn, is due to a lack of incentives to participate. We propose providing economic incentives, which historically have worked very well.

In this paper, we demonstrate a payment scheme that can be used to compensate nodes which provide anonymity in Tor, an existing onion routing, anonymizing network. We show that current anonymous payment schemes are not suitable and introduce a hybrid payment system based on a combination of the Peppercoin Micropayment system and a new type of “one use” electronic cash. Our system claims to maintain users’ anonymity, although payment techniques mentioned previously – when adopted individually – provably fail.


Malicious Node Blind Signature Payment Scheme Forwarding Path Path Node 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Chaum, D.L.: Untraceable Electronic Mail, Return Addresses, and Digital Psuedonyms. Communications of the ACM (1981)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goldschlag, D.M., Reed, M.G., Syverson, P.F.: Hiding routing information. In: Anderson, R. (ed.) IH 1996. LNCS, vol. 1174, pp. 137–150. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Back, A., Goldberg, I., Shostack, A.: Freedom systems 2.1 security issues and analysis. White paper, Zero Knowledge Systems, Inc. (May 2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boucher, P., Shostack, A., Goldberg, I.: Freedom systems 2.0 architecture. Zero Knowledge Systems, Inc. (December 2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chaum, D.: Achieving Electronic Privacy. Scientific American, 96–101 (August 1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chaum, D., Fiat, A., Naor, M.: Untraceable electronic cash. In: Goldwasser, S. (ed.) CRYPTO 1988. LNCS, vol. 403. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Micali, S., Rivest, R.L.: Micropayments revisited. In: CT-RSA, pp. 149–163 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Øverlier, L., Syverson, P.: Locating hidden servers. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kesdogan, D., Agrawal, D., Pham, V., Rautenbach, D.: Fundamental limits on the anonymity provided by the mix technique. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Franz, E., Jerichow, A., Wicke, G.: A payment scheme for mixes providing anonymity. In: Lamersdorf, W., Merz, M. (eds.) TREC 1998. LNCS, vol. 1402, pp. 94–108. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Figueiredo, D.R., Shapiro, J.K., Towsley, D.: Using payments to promote cooperation in anonymity protocols (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reiter, M.K., Wang, X., Wright, M.: Building reliable mix networks with fair exchange. In: ACNS, pp. 378–392 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dingledine, R., Mathewson, N., Syverson, P.: Tor: The second-generation onion router. In: Proceedings of the 13th USENIX Security Symposium (August 2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tunstall, J.: Electronic currency. In: Proceedings of the IFIP WG 11.6 International Conference (October 1989)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hayes, B.: Anonymous one-time signatures and flexible untracable electronic cash. In: AusCrypt 1990: A Workshop on Cryptology, Secure Communication and Computer Security (January 1990)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Camenisch, J., Hohenberger, S., Lysyanskaya, A.: Compact e-cash. In: Cramer, R.J.F. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3494, pp. 302–321. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Okamoto, T.: Efficient blind and partially blind signatures without random oracles. In: Halevi, S., Rabin, T. (eds.) TCC 2006. LNCS, vol. 3876, pp. 80–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dierks, T., Allen, C.: The TLS protocol version 1.0. RFC 2246 (January 1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rivest, R.: Peppercoin micropayments. In: Juels, A. (ed.) FC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3110, pp. 2–8. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Clarke, I., Sandberg, O., Wiley, B., Hong, T.W.: Freenet: A Distributed Anonymous Information Storage and Retrieval System. In: International Workshop on Design Issues in Anonymity and Unobservability (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elli Androulaki
    • 1
  • Mariana Raykova
    • 1
  • Shreyas Srivatsan
    • 1
  • Angelos Stavrou
    • 2
  • Steven M. Bellovin
    • 1
  1. 1.Columbia University 
  2. 2.George Mason University 

Personalised recommendations