On 14 Oct 2005, at 23:30, jrandom at i2p.net wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 >> it is you that are advocating that we abandon a messaging layer >> that by your own admission you haven't even looked at? > > Rejecting something with cause after actually looking at it makes > sense, and is reasonable. You haven't looked at the options, at > least not to the degree necessary to understand how they work. I > am perfectly fine if there's a reason not to use either Tor or I2P.
You may have looked at Dijjer/Freenet's messaging layer, but you obviously don't understand it. For example, you claim that it has a "beast of a meta state-machine framework just to avoid threads". It doesn't avoid threads at all, it uses them extensively - ergo you don't know what you are talking about. Why should we take you seriously when you don't even understand the thing you want us to replace? It isn't our burden to provide reasons not to do things, if you want to persuade us that something is a good idea, then you should provide reasons in favour of it. You haven't provided a single valid reason to use your messaging layer. >> simply making ad hominem remarks about how little I do or don't know >> about Tor or I2P illuminates nothing other than your poor rhetorical >> skills. > > I'm not saying you suck, I'm saying you're making things up. > There's a difference (though people who make things up in tech > arguments to make a point suck [there's your ad hominem]). > > You are saying things which you don't know as if they were true. > Those things are also, in fact, false, which would be trivially > known if you looked into them. That is why I am calling you on > them. Yet you haven't actually called me on anything! You haven't provided a single refutation of any of our arguments, all we get are these childish insults about how little I know what I am talking about. >> If you want to explain exactly what part of my reasoning is false, >> then that might be a useful contribution to the discussion >> > [...] >> I have better things to do than trawl through this already tedious >> discussion > > As do I, especially if you're not going to bother to read what I > write when I explain things to you. Check the list for an > explanation. No. If you have an argument, then lets hear it, I'm not going on a paper chase to make your argument for you. >> Back to the point: Are you denying that Tor ORs are trivially easy >> to harvest? > > Tor > Tor ORs. No, of course, ORs are trivially easy to harvest, > but OPs are not. You may have spoken with arma several years ago, > but several years is an eon in bleeding edge tech. Things change, > new ideas come about, lessons are learned. And what has changed that is relevant to our discussion? > Its ok not to know things. No one will think less of you if you > stop pretending to be up to date. In fact, they'll have more of a > reason to believe other things you say. Oh, so give one single example of something I don't know about Tor that is pertinent to this discussion? For all your arrogant insults, you haven't contradicted a single argument I have made. >>> * Economics >> >> That is an equally valid reason why I2P should switch to use our >> messaging layer, maybe if you had looked at our messaging layer you >> would decide that its a good idea. > > All things being equal, I agree. However, according to toad, your > messaging and transport layer isn't done. And that is news? When did I ever claim that 0.7 was finished? > I2P's is. For the fifty millionth time, I2P's DOESN'T SUIT OUR NEEDS. > > >>> * Risk. >>> >> There are 'ifs' in 0.7, as there are in any application that has not >> yet been deployed. > > This is true. Its why people in the business world want COTS > instead of custom builds most of the time. Its less risky. Reuse > is good. Thanks for telling me about the business world, after running several profitable software companies and raising millions of dollars for them, I really need your advice on the subject. In my experience of the business world, people certainly do strive for code reuse, but only when the code does what they need it to. Yours doesn't. >> One thing that isn't an 'if' about I2P is that its harvestable, >> which makes it unsuitable for our purposes. > > I've probably replied to this a dozen times, none of which you seem > to have read. I'll just leave it as a "whatever". I haven't seen a valid response to this in anything you have said, and I can't be bothered to go on a paper chase. You claim to be trying to help us by persuading us to do this, yet you refuse to answer a simple question that is at the core of the discussion. >>> I did browse through dijjer in the spring when I was >>> designing I2P's though, but didn't seem relevent, as the >>> interfaces were too tightly coupled to the algorithm. >> >> I don't see how. Care to provide any specific examples of this? > > If I remembered every line of code I've ever read, I'd, well, > wouldn't be me, anyway. So no, I don't recall offhand a specific > LOC, but I remember looking through it to see if I could reuse it. I see, so you can't even provide any concrete examples of what is wrong with the thing you want us to replace. You aren't very good at persuasion, are you? > Do you remember a few years back when I was pushing for some changes > to Fred's transport layer to support what was then to become I2P? I > had to actually go out and implement a stream to messaging transport > adapter for you to understand the issue. I know tight coupling > when I see it. From my experience explaining such issues to you, > you may not see them as rapidly. Again with the insults. You haven't explained anything! Every time I challenge you to justify yourself, you resort to a childish insult. You may impress yourself, but you aren't impressing me. All you have really succeeded in persuading me of is how childish you are. I'm beginning to see why people don't take you very seriously in the anonymity community. After this conversation I suspect it probably has more to do with your abrasive character and poor rhetorical skills than the actual technical merit of your project, which is a shame. Ian.
