So, she might not use the first version, and if she does it might be installed or otherwise set up by you (so this hinges a lot on how much she trusts you ;P) or another friend of hers. However, we are building a simple user interface to make the experience of using it friendly and pleasant, and I guess it is worth adding that we also chose a name that we hope does not turn non-technical users away ;P.
* you install it on her computer
* it has a simple user interface
* it has a non-technical sounding name
Is that correct?
What if you reinterpret "my mother" to be "average internet user, in a country with average internet freedoms, who doesn't read HN etc"?
This kind of question always comes up for just about every service ever developed, and as the discussion continues the goalposts tend to shift and the user gets less and less sophisticated and more and more stubborn until at some point you demonstrate a user exists for which I can't prove they want it, and then victory is somehow declared. It is a sport I don't see much interest in playing.
To flip the question: we are providing a replacement for a service that already exists which is used by people worldwide and makes up a sizable market; our replacement is more secure and likely to cost less. Given that beachhead, you can now ask "who else would want to use this service if only it were cheaper and more secure?", and have a really fun brainstorming session.
Internet users who may be less technical and may not care about surveillance or Internet freedom would still be interested when they hear "hey if you install this app you get a few $ (worth of tokens) per month just for sharing your bandwidth"
People who are concerned about surveillance or internet freedom. The latter includes people who are in a country that is censoring the internet.
People who want to earn a little money.
That's good. The more different types of people who are motivated to adopt something, the more widely it will be adopted.