0
2

[–] nefreat 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The paper on arxiv for the paper. Hopefully this brings innovation to TOR however I'd be a lot more excited when respected cryptographers and experts got excited about this.

0
2

[–] Broc_Lia [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The article does say it's far from being ready for use.

0
0

[–] Grizmoblust 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I don't like the tor design.

0
0

[–] Broc_Lia [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Anything in particular you don't like? Just curious.

0
1

[–] Grizmoblust 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

bandwagon is terrible.

Easy to hog the entire network.

Too slow.

Not build for file sharing.

Too many honeypot websites, and nodes.

And history, it was invented by us navy. And still largely funded by the government. Which makes it skeptical. Anything that government touches is a big no-no. Plus, tor devs admitted that some of the code they don't even understand, and what it does. That's even more skeptical.

NSA already admitted that tor sucks.

I2P, on the other hand, handles much better in terms of file sharing, communication, and tunneling system. Plus, the more nodes there are, the faster the network it will be. That's a great design which tor lacks.

CJDNS is much better system. You can be your own ISP, and only need to connect to the closest peer to enable to be in the network. As long other peer is connected to next peer. And that peer is connected to different peer. And so on. You can communicate to that different peer without the need to connect to him physically. You just need a software on top of it to communicate to him. Basically Internet 2.0. The last thing is that you can run anonymity software on top of CJDNS. Beautiful robust system.

Hornet sounds promising. I hope they take parts of I2P from it, and improvise it.