I disagree in general. Hidden service is still a perfectly accurate term. âFastâ may have this issue if such services change and take advantage of the fact that the server location is known for other purposes (e.g. location-based security improvements).
I can see this with âexposedâ (although it actually has the advantage of making it clear to the operators that the service is *not hidden*). Neither âpeeledâ nor âbareâ seems negative to me.
This doesnât seem relevant. We are discussing an existing proposal, in which the .onion domain and Tor's name resolution service are used.
The obvious and suggested shortening (i.e. omitting the word âonionâ) works well, in my opinion.
This reminds me of the âTor-required serviceâ suggestion you initially made. I dislike like it for the same reasons, the primary one of which is that it uses two entirely separate names for services that actually will probably indistinguishable to the user. Thatâs why I like the âonion servicesâ umbrella over both hidden and fast/direct/exposed/public/peeled/etc. Best, Aaron |
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev