[email protected] writes: > [ text/plain ] > On 2016-07-29 17:26, George Kadianakis wrote: >> Hello people, >> >> this is an experimental mail meant to address legitimate usability >> concerns >> with the size of onion addresses after proposal 224 gets implemented. >> It's >> meant for discussion and it's far from a full blown proposal. >> >> Anyway, after prop224 gets implemented, we will go from 16-character >> onion >> addresses to 52-character onion addresses. See here for more details: >> >> https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/proposals/224-rend-spec-ng.txt#n395 >> >> This happens because we want the onion address to be a real public key, >> and not >> the truncated hash of a public key as it is now. We want that so that >> we can do >> fun cryptography with that public key. Specifically, we want to do key >> blinding >> as specified here: >> >> https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/proposals/224-rend-spec-ng.txt#n1692 >> > > > Speaking out of turn here: > > Why not integrate kernelcorn's OnioNS project and keep all the current > security properties? > > OnioNS addresses are much more user friendly than even the shorter > .onion addresses.
Hello bancfc, AFAIK, the OnioNS project was never actually finished nor deployed. It also has various engineering/deployment issues that have not been addressed and it requires a whole infrastructure/community to work. In general, I'm open to DNS-like approaches for hidden services, but if we can also improve the UX situation on the protocol layer, that seems like a win to me :) _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
