Re: [tor-talk] wake up tor devs

[grarpamp <grarpamp@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Ted Smith <tedks@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This seems very counterproductive, given that some networks (Tor) are
> far more researched and developed than others.

The exact same thing would have been said ten years ago about Tor.

On the contrary, once things look 'pretty good' on paper, you
need live networks to test things out at scale and attract
attention. If it's not broken you need to support it, let it run
and see where the idea goes. If it's not your own project or
favorite app you may unfairly downplay it, naturally. So
running such nodes in that manner helps give everyone
agnostic chance.

> There's a reason why the NSA has "Tor Stinks" presentations and not "I2P
> stinks" presentations.

NSA may have give preference in analysis/presentations to
systems based on usage they see. Tor has share, others don't.
And if NSA docs on any other system existed at the time, Snowden
may not have got them, thus we can't know what they say.

The real question is: with Freenet, I2P, Gnunet, CJDNS,
Phantom, Tor, etc... afaik all seemingly 'pretty good' and not
broken... *why* are their adoption shares ranked however
they are? Well, you must discount Tor since it is the only
one with seamless integrated exit feature at scale [though
you can coordinate exiting manually over OpenVPN with a few
of the other networks]. If Tor had no exit feature, you'd likely
find it *behind* other nets in market share since it carries
only TCP. And it's probably at equivalent levels of R&D
as a non-exit transport (or lesser since the other nets never
had real design interest in exit, whereas Tor 'got lucky' bolting
on hidden services after the fact).
-- 
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