[cryptography] Potential funding for crypto-related projects
michael at briarproject.org
Thu Jul 4 11:28:59 EDT 2013
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 04/07/13 13:34, danimoth wrote:
> IMHO that's is unfair. There are many publications on Tor
> vulnerabilities as well, and this is unavoidable. Are you sure that
> in the next two months Tor will not be the main actor of a similar
> You should have pointed us over principles and design, rather than
> By principles, I like i2p more than tor, for its decentralization,
> and for its focus on providing an "anonymous" network layer than a
> "exit point" to existing internet. But this is completely personal,
> and each of us as his/her requirements to satisfy.
I think the point is that i2p's decision to use a decentralised
directory service led to the vulnerabilities described in the paper.
You can't separate principles from their practical effects. I agree
with you that i2p's principles are great, but that shouldn't stop us
from discussing their practical effects (including the bad ones).
I don't like the idea that respect == not talking about problems. How
are problems with i2p and Tor supposed to get fixed if we don't
As for personal choice - yes, it's a matter of personal choice whether
you prefer i2p's goals or Tor's goals. But whether those systems
achieve their goals is not a matter of personal choice - it's a matter
of objective fact that should be settled by examining the evidence.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the cryptography