Re: [INFO] new anonymizing software

[glymr <glymr_darkmoon@xxxxxxx>]

I don't know if this is a correction but the tor hidden service system
is client AND server anonymising, tor itself is client anonymising, and
the hidden services are server anonymising.

It boggles my mind that anyone committed to anonymity would not see the
sense of not using a proprietary language to implement an anonymity
system. C, C++, hell, ada, pascal, what have you - open standards. Java:
pwned by Sun. End of.

Marco A. Calamari wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 11:11 -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 11:35:04AM +0200, bagelcat@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> i2p is not realy new.-) The Version History started in 2003.
>> Personally, my position on I2P is that I have no idea how secure its
>> design is, since I haven't seen a protocol specification.  So far as I
>> can tell, there isn't one.  This doesn't mean that the protocol is
>> broken; just that I have no way of telling what the protocol actually
>> *is* without reading the source and assuming everything the source
>> does is intentional.
> 
> Unfortunatly this is true for other well known software too;
>  Freenet is the first example I can think of.
> 
> Just to close this OT but interesting thread I2P appear
>  a mess from a licensing point of view.
> 
> If I'm not wrong, to solve the impossible task to put
>  together the licensing of various code snippets used to build
>  I2P, the main code is unlicensed, i.e. in the 
>  public domain. Someone know if this is true ?
> 
> Thanks to all for the patience.   Marco
> 
>