On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 07:17:32PM +0200, Bernd wrote:
> 2012/9/26 meh. :
>
> > It's not pragmatist at all, it wastes time and resources doing
> > replaces when it could have just been really binary and prepend the
> > length of the packet, which is the sane
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 02:36:34PM +0530, Nathan Freitas wrote:
> I am concerned in the long run about
> scalability and reliability of this. It is not unheard of for apps
> that work well and do something cool to suddently have 1M+ users, and
> already are nearing half that with Orbot.
That is ex
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 03:17:39PM +0200, Bernd wrote:
> 2012/9/26 :
>
> >>> After implementing the torchat protocol and seeing how bad it
> >>> is, but how nice the idea is
>
> What is bad about the torchat protocol? Is it its pragmatism and the
> fact that it does not use xml and other bloat?
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 02:08:06AM -0400, Robert Ransom wrote:
> On 9/26/12, meh. wrote:
>
> > After implementing the torchat protocol and seeing how bad it is, but
> > how nice the idea is, I started thinking it would be cool to have a
> > more general protocol fo
I'll be short because I'm not used to mailing lists, it's 6 AM and I
haven't slept yet.
After implementing the torchat protocol and seeing how bad it is, but
how nice the idea is, I started thinking it would be cool to have a
more general protocol for P2P use through hidden services.
My question
