Re: [tor-talk] Bittorrent starting to move entirely within anonymous overlay nets

[Jaromil <jaromil@xxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, grarpamp wrote:

> I2P embedded client is a webfront toy that does not scale.
> Define scale as 100 to 1000+ torrents loaded in the app's
> index for seeding.

true I don't consider the usecase of 100 torrents on seed and/or
download. I must say I fail to imagine its conditions, but lets leave
that aside as its probably my limited interest in understanding such
uses of torrent. your argument on scalability holds.

> > Oh and BTW there is even a C++
> > reimplementation of I2P.
> 
> This is known. Hopefully it ends up being lighter.

of course it does. to me it seems very well written.

> > why "a bit harder"?
> 
> Onioncat 80 is harder in I2P due to I2P address width..

ACK, didn't realize that

> It scales worse than the combo Tor + Onioncat UDP + Transmission,
> plus opentracker forming initial meetup space to prime into PEX /
> DHT.  Which people are also using right now today, entirely within
> Tor, and linked to some other networks via other tunnel interfaces
> which I won't bother to detail here.  See dark docs.

very interesting.
I'll save that for later, haven't read docs on the matter yet.

> > linked gist to conquer a new fronteer to bring more relays to Tor: BS!

> Didn't write it, don't share all its plan either.

ok

> In particular, dislike every clearnet app on the planet having to
> link against library for this net, library for that net, deal with
> Tor's stupid lack of anything but TCP transport, talk socks5, not be
> peertopeer endtoend bidirectional, etc over these darknets.  Leads
> to social balkanization and one-net specific apps like each darknet
> creating dinky little private tools like Snark.

> Not knocking i2p / snark, knocking lack of vision and cooperation to
> make apps interoperable across many darknets at once.

there is a tradeoff to this. Tor's popularity makes it an obvious
target and we are mostly loosing this arms-race to law-enforcement
monitoring, which is full-on. not sure how hard will be to detect
torrents, but the call for more relays is admittedly useful. however
that may be just me, yet I doubt, I'm so perverted to prefer, whenever
possible, dinky little private networks that are different and serve
different contexts. My dream is a sort of codified scrambling layer
a'la Vecna's sniffjoke. Not scalable indeed.  But who needs big
amounts of data to travel on P2P, really? these are different
usecases.

> As important as competitive race, is inclusion.
> Which yields faster adoption.

IMHO to be really in the dark one should also not be so popular.. but
OK I get clearly Tor is an attempt at a different strategy.

this would be an interesting conversation.... but I'm not capable to
elaborate further via email now. I think you get what I mean. 

I recommend keeping an eye on naif's posts, he often provides good
hints on where law-enforcement is at with the... counter tor-rorism
;^)

> Similar to how the subject line is yielding faster adoption
> among some percent of the 100M+ torrenters out there.

they'll provide a boost, but it won't stay unchallenged for long.

> > direction of best implementations and there is no doubt that I2P
> > is the best for torrents.
>
> Subjective statement.
> Best you can do is put them all in a comparison table.

you are right such a study is missing

ciao

-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk