> On 4 May 2016, at 19:19, Sebastian Hahn <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> On 04 May 2016, at 11:02, Roger Dingledine <arma@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> That said, we are still very inconsistent about how we use these terms >>> in many other places. >> >> Agreed. I had an idea to do the terminology switchover on the Tor website >> just before the 32c3 onion services talk, and then announce it there. >> I didn't get enough momentum to do it then, but I'm still a fan. > > It seemed like the consensus was to conicide the release of new > onion service scheme with the naming change. I think that's a good > idea. Anything that says hidden service will refer to the thing > we have now, onion services are the more secure thing that we'll > have then. Makes sense to me. I'm also happy with a gradual transition to "onion service" as we are developing proposal 224. Tim Tim Wilson-Brown (teor) teor2345 at gmail dot com PGP 968F094B ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ tor-project mailing list tor-project@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-project