Delivery-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 21:13:20 -0400
Return-Path: <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on moria.seul.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
	DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,T_DKIM_INVALID,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Original-To: archiver@seul.org
Delivered-To: archiver@seul.org
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (eugeni.torproject.org [138.201.14.202])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by khazad-dum.seul.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BC511E070C;
	Fri, 10 Jun 2016 21:13:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6738EE106E;
	Sat, 11 Jun 2016 01:12:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C7B5E056A
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Sat, 11 Jun 2016 01:12:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at 
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (eugeni.torproject.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id icTGKBDctWAg for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>;
 Sat, 11 Jun 2016 01:12:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-vk0-x233.google.com (mail-vk0-x233.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::233])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com",
 Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (not verified))
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA31AE0253
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Sat, 11 Jun 2016 01:12:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-x233.google.com with SMTP id u64so7638470vkf.3
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 18:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
 :cc; bh=+V9oJFK96KkUeat0fdYVgQvBy8thBtTwbeb5FuwI6Z0=;
 b=J/YDBYXkTttD8GZvFh6Zj0qEeV5jhQvu7DLchoqRaovKR2rKnLzzIF5kaOh1jkUvHQ
 1p3i/CBm6GFYRnoU0lJMy8IEvdc/Oj223w4kkczVW8KZ46S/yvbINWUCUIQaRP2z06HB
 UkNsEd0IiGBJ03HopHlRqrAPyqLPSPXsM1PFCVAPmNeE+cRPkbMRTph3BZmjvCGQWaqO
 W2JzWqCt1hdnolYBPCaHWDxmkn89j6+Lhgu0qspK8pizqzzHBYjX9WJK1TDp1asQgHhH
 2qm67KdyJppdpEjlXVkywnYL3rLwd6VI8g6cwbqkFMpJqVoExgr9acXXRa14fcAYJe2r
 7G3w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=+V9oJFK96KkUeat0fdYVgQvBy8thBtTwbeb5FuwI6Z0=;
 b=ZvewT3fDRJeClM1aGpLxYw9+enA5Bbh7jrxHkmbbg1crXBZlE2nbZ5z8nQWDnipfwS
 VWJe35ylJNmj/UFgw1ag+6iyOu9Vjzc0+yuBVNUuuY//HGiwnCSR/9ufotu7lrxMzMFi
 +6lEdEuGj53z2+CFTTLflRyiE4uT44IqlYJfqEGCL7CRHmUfOMeajwCUonKZYXMmxHJu
 gHwzfLzsZVTmWgIQ84zHshabYI0V5q2vlbQZ4Fhn9HML4IaTqIAT0hqxKjvQksnDoIUz
 LOVEeCxyYxON3VZpbEazmu+Sg7vfwM0jThO3lk7afkeH3Ln48waCRDv1u3VRVOrewhMG
 vejA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJRBuZeux2nrHw4bG+ENplfqvyf7eNKkHkuPccii4PAXAPOoUTIhZEDdGLxiNCHgBk34lupytzeAZ4Lwg==
X-Received: by 10.176.64.202 with SMTP id i68mr1779259uad.69.1465607561748;
 Fri, 10 Jun 2016 18:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.4.84 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Jun 2016 18:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20160610142956.GA31550@reflex>
References: <CAD2Ti2_KBVMyd4i9ixR1ohoDFpxU4avKBjRDXj8TGtR5G0P0hA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHKdp-mvWVX9y+FG6pHOgqfhgX8ojrr4o76E7TX=0H1e7F6+Bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD2Ti2-4XCZFD3FYYO0E1vv8JEwD0a6AJ4eNwWb9sOz0oFqM_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160610142956.GA31550@reflex>
From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 21:12:41 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD2Ti2_4538SZqUhov6PvPDiSJw70i+rnq98cGii3NOrxB=ukw@mail.gmail.com>
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
Cc: cypherpunks@cpunks.org
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Bittorrent starting to move entirely within
 anonymous overlay nets
X-BeenThere: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
List-Id: "all discussion about theory, design,
 and development of Onion Routing" <tor-talk.lists.torproject.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/>
List-Post: <mailto:tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org
Sender: "tor-talk" <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>

On 6/10/16, Jaromil <jaromil@dyne.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, grarpamp wrote:
>>
> FTR there are I2P plugins for a vast range of external clients and
> even an embedded new client.

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.

> Oh and BTW there is even a C++
> reimplementation of I2P.

This is known. Hopefully it ends up being lighter.

> why "a bit harder"?

Onioncat 80 is harder in I2P due to I2P address width..

There needs to be a better wider more cross darknet
inclusive solution, but as you may know, that's already up
for grabs in a recent former thread you can easily find / participate.

> Please, lets be frank. I2P supports torrenting on its network since
> many years and it works perfectly fine.

As a minimal tool for small users of a few torrents.

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.

> need for Tor to push more "marketing" to race above "competitors". The

> 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.
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.

As important as competitive race, is inclusion.
Which yields faster adoption.

Similar to how the subject line is yielding faster adoption
among some percent of the 100M+ torrenters out there.

> 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.
-- 
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

