On Sat, Sep 5, 2020, 6:36 PM coderman <[email protected]> wrote:
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Saturday, September 5, 2020 5:07 PM, Karl <[email protected]> wrote: > > This email is shared from a place of forthrightness (and hope). > > https://github.com/ipfs/notes/issues/37 > > Just to add, I suspect the reason that the state of public anonymity tools > is not stronger is that the existing international powerholders, whose > power could be reduced by widespread accessible anonymity, take diverse > action to slow the release and hinder the effective use of the research. > > > ... see also: > """ > Dear @seanlynch <https://github.com/seanlynch> you are belligerent. I am > in fact not saying that Tor or I2p aren't worth using. Come off your > platitude for a few minutes and think about people who may be in a more > high risk situation than yourself. For those people Tor isn't good enough > because their adversary may well be the NSA and the FBI and GCHQ and so on. > I am welcome to put forth my efforts into mix networks but not because you > say so speaking from a place of belligerence. I am a fan of Tor and I do > not go around telling people they can't have any protection. Your > delusional caricature of myself is offensive and alarming. Check yourself > before you wreck yourself.""" > - https://github.com/ipfs/notes/issues/37#issuecomment-687661383 > > :P~ > > > TL;DR: for the IPFS Tor support issue: > > IPFS wants a security audit before merging Tor support. Tor support was > volunteer effort - no paid security review possible. Thus - IPFS does not > support Tor :/ > The above relation was shared by someone who appears to be a new ipfs developer, over two years after the Tor integration work started, after it was _completed_ and _used_ in other forks. A lead ipfs developer named whyrusleeping had collaborated with the Tor development and supported it throughout that thread. whyrusleeping's name is all over the source code everywhere; the turn-down due to security-auditing concern was expressed by a guy who's name I do not recognise, and whyrusleeping made no further comments. Possibly they had a dev meeting without Tor representation and haven't revisited the issue. (It's also possible some random guy just made a comment that ended the discussion, too, from my perspective, since I haven't looked them up.) It looks like all parties are taxed and upset at this point. Obviously we need both Tor and new tech to be usable and supportable. I wish I knew how to contribute. (I have problems forming certain kinds of new memories that started before I learned golang, so I was pretty frustrated with my ability to contribute when I first commented on that issue years ago. I just don't understand go sourcecode. It's so weird. I could do it with a lot of slow effort and tutorials, or maybe a quick reference that translated to another language and libraryset) > > best regards, > Thank you for your modeling of anonymity. We all need to do this, to protect each other and our important work, and spread behaviors that do that.
