Nadim Kobeissi: > > On 2013-06-29, at 11:48 PM, Jacob Appelbaum <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Natanael: >>> I'm not seeing that many options though. The Phantom project died >>> pretty fast; https://code.google.com/p/phantom/ >>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/phantom-protocol >>> http://phantom-anon.blogspot.se/ >>> >>> So who's out there developing any useful protocols for >>> anonymization today? *Anybody*? Could we try to start a new >>> project (if needed) to create one? (I would like one with at >>> least the same level of functionality as I2P, even if it would >>> have to have a very different architecture.) >> >> I guess you might be interested in this project called Tor? A few >> of us have spent a decade working on it: >> >> https://www.torproject.org/ > > There should be a disclaimer somewhere that Tor is a competitor to > I2P, is far from perfect itself (actually has a few glaring > weaknesses, such as exit nodes), and the guy critiquing I2P works for > Tor. >
Ha. There isn't a competition. This isn't zero sum. We're all interested in similar goals and in some cases, the designs are totally different and for good reason. Also, the security properties and reviews of claims have different results. I didn't just critique i2p offhand because I work on Tor - which I disclosed by saying "a few of us have spent a decade working on it" - I linked to a paper that broke it! > I'm a Tor supporter personally, but those things should be > clarified! > Read my email more carefully next time. I specifically encouraged experimentation in a way that seems reasonably safe: >> >> I'd suggest if you want to experiment with Tor and i2p, to try >> Tails: >> >> https://tails.boum.org All the best, Jacob _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list [email protected] http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
