On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 01:36:35PM -0500, A. Johnson wrote:
[snip]
>
> >>> I have heard someone (forget who) propose that 'Dark Web' be
> >>> dropped in favour of CipherSpace which could include all of these
> >>> privacy perserving protocols, leaving terms like "OnionSpace" for
> >>> Tor, "I2P
>> It is interesting that you raise this, because we at I2P have been
>> thinking the same thing. We discussed the issue of I2P terminology at
>> 31C3 and decided that after 12 years of Tor/I2P coexistence, Tor had
>> the upper hand with regard to commonplace terminology.
>>
>> In our next release
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:52:37AM +, str4d wrote:
>
> Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> > A. Johnson wrote:
> >
> >> Several of us [0] working on hidden services have been talking
> >> about adopting better terminology.
> >
> > In general, I am in agreement with this, but I wonder if now might
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> A. Johnson wrote:
>
>> Several of us [0] working on hidden services have been talking
>> about adopting better terminology.
>
> In general, I am in agreement with this, but I wonder if now might
> be a good time to un
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Erik de Castro Lopo
wrote:
>> Several of us [0] working on hidden services have been talking about
>> adopting better terminology.
>
> In general, I am in agreement with this, but I wonder if now might be
> a good time to unify Tor terminology with other similar te
A. Johnson wrote:
> Several of us [0] working on hidden services have been talking about
> adopting better terminology.
In general, I am in agreement with this, but I wonder if now might be
a good time to unify Tor terminology with other similar technologies
like I2P and Cjdns/Hyperboria.
I have
Good point. We (the Sponsor R group) have done no usability testing nor are we
planning to. I don’t think we really have the time or skills for that,
unfortunately. Maybe Tor more broadly has resources to put into a sophisticated
re-branding effort. In any case, we do use these words every day a
Roger, your suggestion to prefer “onion service” regardless of any client or
server short-circuiting is in line with our suggestions. When
server-short-circuiting becomes an actual thing, then Paul may argue that a
different name is appropriate (depending on if it uses an onion address, as I
un
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 01:13:26PM -0500, A. Johnson wrote:
| Hello all,
|
| Several of us [0] working on hidden services have been talking about adopting
better terminology. Some of the problem
| 1. '''onion service''' should be preferred to refer to what is now
called a "hidden service"
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 01:41:35PM -0500, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 01:13:26PM -0500, A. Johnson wrote:
> > 1. '''onion service''' should be preferred to refer to what is now
> > called a "hidden service". If other flavors of onion services develop in
> > the future, t
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 01:13:26PM -0500, A. Johnson wrote:
> 1. '''onion service''' should be preferred to refer to what is now
> called a "hidden service". If other flavors of onion services develop in the
> future, this term could refer to all of them, with more specific terms being
> u
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015, at 01:13 PM, A. Johnson wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Several of us [0] working on hidden services have been talking about
> adopting better terminology.
I agree 100% with the term list and am eager to start using it.
Some of the problems with current terms areh
> 1. '''Hi
Hello all,
Several of us [0] working on hidden services have been talking about adopting
better terminology. Some of the problems with current terms are
1. '''Hidden''' and '''Dark''' have a negative connotations.
2. '''Hidden-service website''' is too long; '''hidden site''' is t
13 matches
Mail list logo
