Delivery-Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 10:07:16 -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_SIGNED,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,T_DKIM_INVALID,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY
	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 0F1011E01A6;
	Sat, 11 Jun 2016 10:07:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44F0BE1647;
	Sat, 11 Jun 2016 14:07:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 165DFE15F8
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Sat, 11 Jun 2016 14:07:01 +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 o65-BSznIMGT for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>;
 Sat, 11 Jun 2016 14:07:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from tupac2.dyne.org (tupac2.dyne.org [178.62.188.7])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDCECE15F6
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Sat, 11 Jun 2016 14:07:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 (Authenticated sender: jaromil@dyne.org) with ESMTPSA id CBB1818276A
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dyne.org; s=mail;
 t=1465654017; bh=ErFJYHWvlP2BvQAkKwv5rHSBVbjhq//+Dr1Pqsbhjac=;
 h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From;
 b=OOvd0A2O67TN9yy/06hGjPOv64xpBSeA7KQELuYG2aI1sohHCdatcljyZScQAoXpr
 8PgtpoR08GtYeUjDWLk7Gb37AisBS7F0EMF5e0iUVfZRRojeImUl0NjkQi36Bogjvr
 Gu8svwV7VV79JHoG5PzOuGC9ZxS7exV8XxENDE4U=
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 16:08:19 +0200
From: Jaromil <jaromil@dyne.org>
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
Message-ID: <20160611140819.GA13141@reflex>
References: <CAD2Ti2_KBVMyd4i9ixR1ohoDFpxU4avKBjRDXj8TGtR5G0P0hA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHKdp-mvWVX9y+FG6pHOgqfhgX8ojrr4o76E7TX=0H1e7F6+Bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD2Ti2-4XCZFD3FYYO0E1vv8JEwD0a6AJ4eNwWb9sOz0oFqM_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160610142956.GA31550@reflex>
 <CAD2Ti2_4538SZqUhov6PvPDiSJw70i+rnq98cGii3NOrxB=ukw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAD2Ti2_4538SZqUhov6PvPDiSJw70i+rnq98cGii3NOrxB=ukw@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Dyne.org Free Software Foundry
X-GPG-Keyserver: pgp.mit.edu
X-GPG-Id: 4ACB7D10 [expires: 2018-09-05]
X-GPG-Fingerprint: 6113 D89C A825 C5CE DD02  C872 73B3 5DA5 4ACB 7D10
User-Agent: Jaro Mail <https://www.dyne.org/software/jaromail>
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 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

