> > I meant: If you want Tor-like circuits, then you should contribute to > > Tor itself. You don't want to fragment the anonymity set more than > > necessary. It's different if you have some really new idea of course, > > but new language, changing ciphers, etc. do not suffice. > > If my understanding is correct, Tor is quite highly integrated and is serving > very specific purpose. Because of different environment with different > capabilities and different requirements it is quite difficult for me to use > Tor directly as is.
Your understanding is incorrect. Tor is *very* general purpose... I mean... come on, it transports any stream. What is specific about that? > Then we can describe other systems (including Tor) as specific combination of > pluggable features that Ronion needs for functioning. Just like in most cases > no one re-implements something as generic as TCP/IP stack. Your are proposing that Tor Project do what exactly? Rewrite Tor to use a library that performs onion routing? I like this idea but it's not going to happen any time soon. > So I'd like to first discuss Ronion itself in order to identify whether it is > good enough base to possibly implement what is required by Tor and/or mix > networks on top of it. Onion routing really has nothing to do with mixnets... but if we articulate the phrase "mix networks on top of it" to mean utilize onion routing as the link layer of a mixnet, then yes that is possible AND it is true that they provide orthogonal anonymity properties. Although, I would think that there better be a compelling reason to use a hella slow link layer for a mix network... where a noise based link layer that is actually fast and efficient would do. Cheers, David
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Messaging mailing list Messaging@moderncrypto.org https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/messaging
