[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [tor-talk] comparison of Tor and Kovri in regards to deanonymization attacks


> > I2P by design safer than Tor. but due to the usage and rapid development
> > of Tor , I2P left behind many steps which needs long time to catch up or
> > sudden magic stick effect.

I might be a kind of a rare bird here since I'm involved with both I2P
and Tor.  I was also involved with Freenet, too.

I don't know I2P is by design safer than Tor or vice versa, but at
least Tor has been more researched than I2P, both technically and
legally.  Tor also seems to have far richer resources.

I agree that there are many areas I2P needs to catch up.  One of the
great things about Tor is Tor Metrics.  I2P has some stats sites, but
not on par with Tor Metrics.  I heard someone is interested in working
on I2P Metrics or something like that next year, and I will definitely
help him.

BTW, I believe it's really nice to have multiple implementations for
the similar purpose.  Trying out all of them is very educational and
quite fun.  Recently I wrote a short introduction for I2P with Tor
users on my mind.


> - I2P is more oriented for traffic inside the I2P network (e.g. you
> cannot browse cnn.com anonymously via I2P).

It's true that I2P is basically a closed network, but I think I2P plus
Orchid can skim the cream of both.  With the I2P Orchid plugin, you
can access I2P eepsites (*.i2p) via the I2P network and *.onions or
clearnet sites via the Tor network, seamlessly.

Best regards,

Masayuki Hatta
Associate Professor, Faculty of Economics and Management, Surugadai
University, Japan


mhatta@xxxxxxx  / mhatta@xxxxxxxxxx / mhatta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx /
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to