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

[bo0od <bo0od@xxxxxxxxxx>]

i didnt reply to him on what he said because i knew he was a newbie user
with the statement "you cannot browse cnn.com anonymously via I2P".

and about IBB, like i said there is until now no official support for
any browser to I2P or coming with it. But there is work in progress:

- firefox.profile.i2p

https://github.com/eyedeekay/firefox.profile.i2p

- update-i2pbrowser , which convert TBB inside Whonix to work with I2P:

http://forums.dds6qkxpwdeubwucdiaord2xgbbeyds25rbsgr73tbfpqpt4a6vjwsyd.onion/t/i2p-integration/4981/248


grarpamp:
>> - I2P can be attacked with far less resources than Tor;
> 
> Moot when $10k is probably enough to Sybil at least
> some small fraction of either of them.
> 
>> - Tor is deeply researched and various attack types and problems have
>> already been solved;
> 
> So if Tor is done, why don't you start writing grants to reseach,
> advance, and solve some of the undone, equally applicable,
> and necessary problem space of mixnets and other potential
> designs, instead of continuing to throw [government] money
> at Tor's curve of diminishing returns.
> 
>> - Tor is larger as a network with more capacity, and more diversity;
> 
> Start advertising, using, analysing other types of networks then.
> 
>> They also have different purposes so they cannot be directly compared on
>> absolutely every feature
> 
> Why do so many reviews keep implying this copout,
> "B network doesn't have X feature therefore B sucks"...
> of course networks are different, unique features are
> not detractions they're just incomparable items,
> go compare and analyse the similar features then.
> 
> Both Tor and I2P generally claim their non-exit modes
> to be anonymous advanced designs resistant to attack.
> Go compare and analyze that. If you don't like the results,
> go start new designs.
> 
> Reviews can even conform features... users can
> actually torrent internally over both, and exit over
> both... analyze that.
> 
> Many orthagonal features are modular ideas embeddable
> in any decent network anyway, so they're not necessarily
> unique, only a matter of doing it, if sensible of course.
> 
>> - I2P is more oriented for traffic inside the I2P network (e.g. you
>> cannot browse cnn.com anonymously via I2P).
> 
> Yes you can, you just have to find or be an exit outproxy service
> and configure it manually.
> 
>>> I would summaries the success of Tor over I2P with these points:
> 
> Government: Initialed the Tor design, put in Decades of $Millions
> of controlling interest funding, and programmed Marketing.
> 
> Throw those kind of resources at I2P or any other network
> and they would be relatively equal contenders too.
> 
> Throw Voluntary versions of those kinds of resources
> at any network, and it might be a bit more novel and free
> to go up against the backer of the "successful" one above.
> 
>>> - Tor has a modified browser which is a fork of firefox-esr called Tor
>>> Browser Bundle which is easy to click and run with Tor. I2P until now
>>> there is no official browser supporting it and user needs to do the
>>> configurations manually.
> 
> So stuff I2P inside TBB's work and call it IBB.
> 
-- 
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