grarpamp:
>> I didn't make an academic comparison, but it looks like retroshare
>> is quickly gaining more and more users:
>> http://retroshare.sourceforge.net/
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friend-to-friend
>
> When I last looked briefly at this one a couple years back, the
> users were not n
On 9/26/12 8:48 PM, Mike Perry wrote:
>
>
> For 1: It would seem to me that a system that ships a local torified
> XMPP server would satisfy this. XMPP is fully decentralized, and
> maintains persistent connections between servers. Each user would run
> their own server over .onion.
Something like
On 9/26/12 9:14 PM, Nathan Freitas wrote:
> I can tell you that based on prototype code I have created, SMS and
> VoIP type p2p applications between mobile devices works just fine. The
> latency is not bad, especially since the apps are coded to be
> asynchronous anyhow. Whether it takes 10 seconds
>>> Given that these services are surely coming in force... and from
>>> directions that see these networks more as a raw transport than
>>> say, primarily for the purposes outlined on their respective web
>>> pages... it seems the usual echo of "we're a nice project, don't
>>> do that, too much lo
Il 27/09/2012 02:06, adrelanos ha scritto:
>> More links are welcome.
>
> Loads of links here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_P2P
I researched and used Oneswarm in the past, it works fairly well.
It's in the wikipedia page and its site is http://oneswarm.org
Jan
__
> Loads of links here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_P2P
Always a good read :) Part of me wants to see if one giant anonymous
general purpose filesystem will ever come about...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_systems#Distributed_file_systems
> A very interesting idea is/wa
Thus spake adrelanos (adrela...@riseup.net):
> grarpamp:
> > Given that these services are surely coming in force... and from
> > directions that see these networks more as a raw transport than
> > say, primarily for the purposes outlined on their respective web
> > pages... it seems the usual ech
>> My question is, how would it scale and what would be the implications
>> of such a system (every user would be a hidden service and would be
>> constantly connected to other hidden services it wants to interact
>> with)?
> thrash the HS
> directory system excessively, and probably overload the
grarpamp:
> Given that these services are surely coming in force... and from
> directions that see these networks more as a raw transport than
> say, primarily for the purposes outlined on their respective web
> pages... it seems the usual echo of "we're a nice project, don't
> do that, too much lo
> While we don't need a very complex p2p design (in short, we are mostly
> just talking about simple HTTP servers running on each device, behind
> a hidden service .onion), I am concerned in the long run about
> scalability and reliability of this.
Is, or can Tor be, useful or optimal? On which pl
Allow me to combine some quotes from this recent thread alone...
> I've had an idea for a while for a killer service for...
> I'd be very much interested to see it in reality. I guess the
> delays will be more then acceptable.
> it would be cool to have a more general protocol for P2P use
> thro
> When one phone connects to another, it "knows" that the device it's
> connecting to is running the hidden service that it is trying to send
> a message to. However, the other phone, (the one running the hidden
> service), has no idea who is connecting to it.
You can use ping pong handshakes. Or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/26/2012 08:53 PM, Ted Smith wrote:
> Further, SMS is basically real-time. An SMS app that had
> hidden-service type delays (which would be especially bad when
> roaming between network connections, causing you to rebuild all of
> your circuits) w
Thus spake Nathan Freitas (nat...@freitas.net):
> On 09/26/2012 10:08 AM, 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 for P2P use through hidden services
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 for P2P use through hidden service
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 19:50:56 +, meh. wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 07:17:32PM +0200, Bernd wrote:
...
> > No, these few string replaces do not waste any time or resources, this
> > claim is totally ridiculous.
>
> They do, you have to go over the whole packet
Yes, over all typically 100 by
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 way to do something like that
> > inste
Nathan Freitas:
> On 09/26/2012 10:08 AM, 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 for P2P use through hidden services.
>
> This is something we have defin
Ted Smith:
> On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 11:42 +0100, t...@lists.grepular.com wrote:
>>
>> This is not the same as using XMPP over Tor. XMPP requires a trusted
>> third party server to handle the relaying. This is P2P direct
>> communication using hidden services. It's not real-time IM chat. It's
>> SMS
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 way to do something like that
> instead of using an end of packet separator.
No, these few string repla
On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 11:42 +0100, t...@lists.grepular.com wrote:
>
> This is not the same as using XMPP over Tor. XMPP requires a trusted
> third party server to handle the relaying. This is P2P direct
> communication using hidden services. It's not real-time IM chat. It's
> SMS style chat (with
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 for P2P use through hidden service
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?
___
tor-talk mailing list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 26/09/12 10:06, Nathan Freitas 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 for P2P use through hidden
>> services.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/26/2012 10:08 AM, 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 for P2P use through hidden services.
This is s
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:01:14PM -0700, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> meh. writes:
>
> > 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.
> >
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 for P2P use through hidden services.
>
> My question is, how would it scale and what would be the implicati
meh. writes:
> 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 is, how would it scale and what would be the implications
> of su
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
31 matches
Mail list logo
