On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, grarpamp wrote: > I2P embedded client is a webfront toy that does not scale. > Define scale as 100 to 1000+ torrents loaded in the app's > index for seeding.
true I don't consider the usecase of 100 torrents on seed and/or download. I must say I fail to imagine its conditions, but lets leave that aside as its probably my limited interest in understanding such uses of torrent. your argument on scalability holds. > > Oh and BTW there is even a C++ > > reimplementation of I2P. > > This is known. Hopefully it ends up being lighter. of course it does. to me it seems very well written. > > why "a bit harder"? > > Onioncat 80 is harder in I2P due to I2P address width.. ACK, didn't realize that > It scales worse than the combo Tor + Onioncat UDP + Transmission, > plus opentracker forming initial meetup space to prime into PEX / > DHT. Which people are also using right now today, entirely within > Tor, and linked to some other networks via other tunnel interfaces > which I won't bother to detail here. See dark docs. very interesting. I'll save that for later, haven't read docs on the matter yet. > > linked gist to conquer a new fronteer to bring more relays to Tor: BS! > Didn't write it, don't share all its plan either. ok > In particular, dislike every clearnet app on the planet having to > link against library for this net, library for that net, deal with > Tor's stupid lack of anything but TCP transport, talk socks5, not be > peertopeer endtoend bidirectional, etc over these darknets. Leads > to social balkanization and one-net specific apps like each darknet > creating dinky little private tools like Snark. > Not knocking i2p / snark, knocking lack of vision and cooperation to > make apps interoperable across many darknets at once. there is a tradeoff to this. Tor's popularity makes it an obvious target and we are mostly loosing this arms-race to law-enforcement monitoring, which is full-on. not sure how hard will be to detect torrents, but the call for more relays is admittedly useful. however that may be just me, yet I doubt, I'm so perverted to prefer, whenever possible, dinky little private networks that are different and serve different contexts. My dream is a sort of codified scrambling layer a'la Vecna's sniffjoke. Not scalable indeed. But who needs big amounts of data to travel on P2P, really? these are different usecases. > As important as competitive race, is inclusion. > Which yields faster adoption. IMHO to be really in the dark one should also not be so popular.. but OK I get clearly Tor is an attempt at a different strategy. this would be an interesting conversation.... but I'm not capable to elaborate further via email now. I think you get what I mean. I recommend keeping an eye on naif's posts, he often provides good hints on where law-enforcement is at with the... counter tor-rorism ;^) > Similar to how the subject line is yielding faster adoption > among some percent of the 100M+ torrenters out there. they'll provide a boost, but it won't stay unchallenged for long. > > direction of best implementations and there is no doubt that I2P > > is the best for torrents. > > Subjective statement. > Best you can do is put them all in a comparison table. you are right such a study is missing ciao -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
