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

Re: [tor-talk] Let's make Onion Addresses Meaningful To Humans

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:36:45 +0000, Robert Ransom wrote:
> Which languages do you want us to ship a dictionary for in every Tor
> client?  (Please specify the exact dictionaries you want us to use as
> well.)

Left as an exercise for later.

> How large are these dictionaries (in bytes)?

The last one I tried is 16655 words, 91445 bytes (null-terminated strings).

> Have you tried this using the actual dictionaries that you want us to
> use?  Are the resulting addresses really memorable?


=> Slightly.

(I admit that I did not look up what base the *.onion names are
 in, so the number of bits and thus words may be off.)

> How long are the
> resulting addresses?

Longer, of course.

> Can they be entered into a computer as
> efficiently as addresses in the current format?

Depends on the meaning of 'efficient'. Being longer it's more obvious work
to type, but...

> Can a human proofread
> addresses in this form for errors as efficiently as addresses in the
> current format?

...easier to proofread or spell over the phone. But then, the proofread
part may be eased by adding a few minus signs into the usual onion names
just as well.

That said, the real problem is deployment of anything like this.


"Totally trivial. Famous last words."
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800
tor-talk mailing list