Re: [tor-talk] A Pluggable Transport based on i2p?

Try running a node on dial up. It wouldn't be practical. Would it technically work? Sure. Is it practical? I think not. On 3/16/2017 11:24 PM, Dave Warren wrote: On Thu, Mar 16, 2017, at 17:19, Kevin wrote: I disagree. In today's climate, speed matters. Maybe for some use cases. If

Re: [tor-talk] A Pluggable Transport based on i2p?

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017, at 17:19, Kevin wrote: > I disagree. In today's climate, speed matters. Maybe for some use cases. If you're having a real time text conversation, you need as many B/s as you can type (most likely 1-2 digits) and a multiple second latency is fine. I first connected out to

Re: [tor-talk] A Pluggable Transport based on i2p?

I disagree. In today's climate, speed matters. On 3/16/2017 5:48 PM, grarpamp wrote: Perhaps, but wouldn't that cause considerable lag? Indeed! I can't imagine something better than 100Kb/s with that sort of setup. What is this silly idea that everything has to be fast to be useable for

Re: [tor-talk] A Pluggable Transport based on i2p?

>> Perhaps, but wouldn't that cause considerable lag? > Indeed! I can't imagine something better than 100Kb/s with that sort of setup. What is this silly idea that everything has to be fast to be useable for something or someone? Have you not seen even the second level of the onion deepweb yet...

Re: [tor-talk] A Pluggable Transport based on i2p?

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:44 PM, wrote: > I was playing with the SAM protocol of I2Pd. When I typed some control > characters by pressing some Ctrl+Alphabet keys in telnet window, the I2Pd on > the other side crashed with a seg fault. It really freaked me out. Did you

Re: [tor-talk] A Pluggable Transport based on i2p?

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 01:44:06AM +0100, m.aj...@tuta.io wrote: > I was playing with the SAM protocol of I2Pd. When I typed some control > characters by pressing some Ctrl+Alphabet keys in telnet window, the I2Pd on > the other side crashed with a seg fault. It really freaked me out. This

Re: [tor-talk] A Pluggable Transport based on i2p?

You might be able to hide the fact that you are using Tor, but there is no pluggable transports for I2P you can use to hide the fact that you are using I2P, at least to my knowledge. When I2P developers talk about "anonymity", they are talking about the difficulty to determine what did you do

Re: [tor-talk] A Pluggable Transport based on i2p?

> That said, one of the side effects of making a successful i2p pluggable transport would be that censors would have more incentive to censor i2p connections. I think that's a very important point, especially since the i2p team doesn't have enough funding, and censorship resistance is not their

Re: [tor-talk] A Pluggable Transport based on i2p?

> I2P is probably also not the easiest thing to implement due to it's complexity and it's currently only implemented in Java, which is not exactly a good basis for a pluggable transport. There's a C++ implementation of i2p called i2pd: https://github.com/purplei2p/i2pd -- tor-talk mailing list

Re: [tor-talk] A Pluggable Transport based on i2p?

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 03:43:10PM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote: > Jonathan responded with: > > You want to hide the fact that you are using an anonymization network > > by using an anonymization network. This idea seems pretty stupid to me. > > But I think that's taking a very narrow view of

Re: [tor-talk] A Pluggable Transport based on i2p?

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 06:20:53AM -0400, Lolint wrote: > Hi, > > Could it be possible to implement a pluggable transport using i2p? The way > this could work > is that a server would function as a bridge node, and will also have the i2p > router installed, > and the client will connect to this

Re: [tor-talk] A Pluggable Transport based on i2p?

> You want to hide the fact that you are using an anonymization network by using an anonymization network. This idea seems pretty stupid to me. That setup was not about hiding the fact that one uses Tor, I can think of three or four advantages: o Getting around Tor censorship when your

Re: [tor-talk] A Pluggable Transport based on i2p?

On 03/15/2017 10:36 AM, Jonathan Marquardt wrote: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 06:20:53AM -0400, Lolint wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Could it be possible to implement a pluggable transport using i2p? The way >> this could work >> is that a server would function as a bridge node, and will also have the i2p

Re: [tor-talk] A Pluggable Transport based on i2p?

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 06:20:53AM -0400, Lolint wrote: > Hi, > > Could it be possible to implement a pluggable transport using i2p? The way > this could work > is that a server would function as a bridge node, and will also have the i2p > router installed, > and the client will connect to this

Re: [tor-talk] A Pluggable Transport based on i2p?

> Perhaps, but wouldn't that cause considerable lag? Indeed! I can't imagine something better than 100Kb/s with that sort of setup. -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to

Re: [tor-talk] A Pluggable Transport based on i2p?

Perhaps, but wouldn't that cause considerable lag? On 3/15/2017 6:20 AM, Lolint wrote: Hi, Could it be possible to implement a pluggable transport using i2p? The way this could work is that a server would function as a bridge node, and will also have the i2p router installed, and the

[tor-talk] A Pluggable Transport based on i2p?

Hi, Could it be possible to implement a pluggable transport using i2p? The way this could work is that a server would function as a bridge node, and will also have the i2p router installed, and the client will connect to this bridge via I2P Tunnels, <=><=><=><=> What do you think? Thx