Re: Proposal of a new hidden wiki

["Ringo Kamens" <2600denver@xxxxxxxxx>]

It's not the issue of a "great wall" attack where a person can't
access a public wiki with onion links, it's an issue of whether that
wiki could even exist. You'd have to crazy to host that on a public
machine.
Comrade Ringo Kamens

On 8/8/07, vikingserver@xxxxxxxxx <vikingserver@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  If you use Tor you can access a web site whether or not it's a hidden
> service. If you can access Tor, censorship is already defeated.
>
>  But, please experiment, and as I said in an earlier post: I'm willing to
> run a backup of a hidden wiki, would there be a need. See my other post.
>
>  /Viking
>
>  Ringo Kamens skrev:
>  I appreciate the concern, but I think that while freenet is a viable
> option and certainly there should be a backup on it, tor users need a
> central link cache (so they can use the tor hidden network). I think
> that tor is the right network for unbreakable hidden website,
> especially if we use redundant services (through RAID-over-network?).
> The reason we can do this on the "real internet" is that it would get
> censored. Really quickly. Many countries have laws banning such
> activities or linking to certain sites, like cryptography sites, which
> is why tor links must be linked to from a hidden wiki.
> Comrade Ringo Kamens
>
> On 8/8/07, vikingserver@xxxxxxxxx <vikingserver@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>  Hello Karsten, Ringo and Eduardo,
>
> Feel free to experiment, it's fun... But:
> In my opinion it's MUCH easier to:
> -have one well known hidden wiki
> -have one or more well known backups of the hidden wiki, with the edit
> function disabled
>
> If the primary server is down, people can just go to a backup.
> If the primary server goes permanently down, a backup can become the new
> primary server.
>
> If you want to create unbreakable hidden websites, tor isn't today the
> right network, but might become in the future. It might be better to use
> a network with a distributed cache system like freenet or such. Or to
> help develop Tor by creating a distributed cache system for Tor. But
> experimenting is fun, so I don't want you not to try. You might discover
> a bug or security vulnerability by doing something that isn't supposed
> to be done.
>
> Every network has it's differences. Freenet is ultra slow, is known for
> hosting child porn, doesn't allow exits to the internet, and isn't
> actively developed. Tor has the world's most hated and feared army as a
> sponsor/initiator of the project, but on the other hand it's fast and
> does it job. Freenet has a slow but working system for creating almost
> unbreakable web sites, Tor has a simpler, faster but more vulnerable
> system to hide websites.
>
> With Tor it's very easy to detect if a tor server and a tor service go
> down at the same time. Showing on what server a hidden service runs.
>
>
> And by the way, why is there a need to have a hidden wiki, when it's
> going to get detected soon enough who runs it? Why not a public wiki
> with .onion links? Why not add .onion links to the public wiki that
> already exists?
> Blessed are thee who stay hidden inside Tor, for the hiddenness from the
> evil internet bestoeth them! ;-)
>
>
>
>