On 24/10/15 09:28, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Freitag, 23. Oktober 2015, 16:47:47 schrieb Steve Dougherty: >> I'm not proposing that we bundle Tor, that this replace the existing UDP >> transport, nor that it become a typical mode of operation. I'm pointing out >> a possible use of a TCP transport plugin. I'm also not suggesting we do a >> whole bunch of Tor-specific discovery/routing work like Matthew mentioned. >> The initial use case is limited to darknet connections between hidden >> services. > Also keep in mind that this would just be a specific application of a > general feature which hides darknet connections. The most > time-consuming part of it would be finishing and merging transport > plugins. That's a huge project and a long way off. Chetan's changes are huge, and there's much work still to be done. It's popular on Uservoice, but even so, it's not the best use of limited time and funds IMHO.
And it's not even clear to me that it's the right approach; arguably real-time network-visible crypto should not be in Java since we can't do constant time, can't pin pages in memory etc. And Tor transports are external. So arguably we should have an external C daemon for crypto and transport layer. > And there are already people routing darknet connections over CJDNS. I guess I'm not totally opposed; there are use cases for darknet connections tunneled over other networks. You might know somebody as a pseudonymous identity via e.g. hidden forums. But it shouldn't be a priority. Certainly not before we've improved darknet considerably. > Best wishes, > Arne
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
