[seabee]

Unfortunately, it won't work.

1. It's a charity tax; you have to convince people to incur the cost of Tor (i.e. CAPTCHAs everywhere) for activities that don't require Tor.

2. You can't neutralise a poison by diluting it.

Firstly, from the operators' POV, if there's a widespread agreement that people use Tor even though they don't need to, then they know voluntary users can be pressured not to use Tor through sheer inconvenience. Even if you wanted to boycott a service that blocked Tor, it's notoriously hard to make good on that threat unless you wield a lot of power or annoyed a very large number of people. So the consequences are minor.

Secondly, the percentage of malicious Tor traffic is a red herring. What operators care about is the origins of malicious traffic. If 50% of your attacks come from one particular country (or Tor) and the cost of losing that traffic is less than the cost of that malicious traffic, there is a real incentive to block that traffic. Combined with the first point, the cost of losing voluntary Tor users is insignificant if they can easily choose not to use it.

[throwaway7767]

> 1. It's a charity tax; you have to convince people to incur the cost of Tor (i.e. CAPTCHAs everywhere) for activities that don't require Tor.

Some people will (and do) do it. You're right that you won't convince everyone to run Tor all the time, but you won't need to.

Also, mozilla have been floating ideas such as integrating Tor into firefox for use in a new kind of private browsing mode. This affects things considerably.

> 2. You can't neutralise a poison by diluting it.

Yes, you can. Both in the metaphorical as well as the direct sense. At some point the solution is too dilute for the poison to cause harm.

I use Tor all the time. I know of local web shops that have rejected the idea of blocking Tor because they looked at their logs and saw that they get actual sales through it - from people like me.

[wolfgke]

> 1. It's a charity tax; you have to convince people to incur the cost of Tor (i.e. CAPTCHAs everywhere) for activities that don't require Tor.

People are willing to invest personal ressources for charitable purposes. Why not here?

People are willing to fight against discrimination. Why not against discrimination of Tor users?

> 2. You can't neutralise a poison by diluting it.

There is also poisonous traffic from non-Tor adresses.

> Combined with the first point, the cost of losing voluntary Tor users is insignificant if they can easily choose not to use it.

People would strictly avoid restaurants that don't serve coloured people. Why don't they avoid services that don't serve Tor users?

[Vendan]

How easy is it for you to know they don't serve Tor users unless you are a Tor user? This is like saying "Why don't colored people avoid restaurants that don't serve colored people?"