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@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk