the tor scam - Re: AP deconstructed: Why it has not happened yet, and will not

Mirimir mirimir at riseup.net
Thu Aug 9 10:25:12 PDT 2018


On 08/08/2018 11:01 PM, juan wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 20:44:53 -0700
> Mirimir <mirimir at riseup.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>
>> Anyway, I vaguely recall proposed higher-latency mix networks that would
>> be usable for browsing, remote management, etc. But I haven't heard that
>> any are actually getting implemented.
> 
> 	so? 

So? Well, if they're not being implemented, they're not very useful. You
can fume all you want about some ideal that ought to exist. But that
alone doesn't really help much.

And yeah, I know that they're not being implemented because those
Americunt fascists are so damn good at propaganda. I do tend to agree
with you about that. But that's not the only reason. There's also the
latency vs usability tradeoff. Or even if it is, maybe you ought to be
promoting them?

But not Freenet! That shit is ~20 years out of date. More below.

> 	Not sure if you are keeping track of the 'issue' here. As far as I'm concerned the 'issue' is not BROWSING THE FUCKING WEB but doing 'cryptoanarchy' 'stuff'

Huh? Just what the fuck else is "'cryptoanarchy' 'stuff'" then? There
are web sites. There's email. There are various more-or-less P2P
messaging systems. There's SSH for managing servers.

I agree that email and messaging would better resist compromise if they
used higher-latency mix networks. Even very high-latency ones, with lots
of padding. But SSH via nested VPN chains plus Tor is painful enough as
it is. I can't imagine waiting minutes between typing and remote action.

>> What have I missed?
> 
> 	good thing that at least you are asking. Now try to answer your question. 

Well, I was hoping for some constructive discussion. But that's hard
with you. But whatever, we are what we are.

>> Yes, basically. Tor was developed by the US military. But that's not
>> likely why privacy activists embraced it.
> 
> 	yes it is - 'privacy' 'activists' 'embraced' it because the fucking US military promoted it. 
> 
> 	again, here's a link for you 
> 
> 	http://www.monitor.upeace.org/innerpg.cfm?id_article=816
> 	
> 	that's commie 'anarchist' appelbaum who got US$ 100k per year to promote a tool used by the US govt to promote coups in the middle east. 

Indeed. Tor was announced on _this list_ :)

And seriously, are you following the published literature on overlay
networks? I was, but I'm maybe 2-3 years out of date. So if any y'all
know about something that's getting traction, or seriously ought to be,
please do point to it.

>> It became popular because it
>> provided a better mix of security and usability.
> 
> 
> 	yes, ask all the people who are in jail thanks to tor. Or dead. 

Yeah, yeah. But nothing's perfect. And consider how many more would be
jailed or dead if they _hadn't_ used Tor.

>>>> Also very slow. And I can't imagine how it could have
>>>> scaled. Although I suppose that some of the binary newsgroups did get
>>>> pretty fucking huge. But anyway, overhead is a key problem with mix
>>>> networks.
>>>
>>>
>>> 	That's how they work as far as I understand them. So saying it's a problem really misses the point. 
>>
>> What's a problem is _too much_ overhead.
> 
> 
> 	you are just bullshiting and hand waving. 

No, I'm not. Go read the fucking papers, if you don't believe me.

>> That is, total traffic grows
>> more or less exponentially with the number of users.
> 
> 
>>
>>>> Development of the Web was part of it, I'm sure. 
>>>
>>> 	Yep. And the 'culture' behind it. Allow retards to stream super ultra SHD videos. But I wouldn't like to blame the victims too much, so of course the problem is the assholes at the top who dictate how 'technology' is developed. 
>>
>> Open-source software is hardly driven by "assholes at the top".
> 
> 	
> 	what - are you referring to the fact that tor is open source? So fucking what. It is developed and controlled by military scum like syverson and the little tor mafia. Who by now must have gotten 10 MILLION DOLLARS for their 'work'.

So what? Is poverty your ideal or something?

>> Trust me, dude. Stay away from Freenet. Sure, you think Tor is pwned.
>> But Freenet is so pwned that I'd never use it ;) Except through Tor ;)
>> It's a joke. 
> 
> 	yes I agree. What you say is a joke. 
> 	
> 	You are confirming from the nth time that you are if not a paid agent, an 'amateur' one. 
> 
> 
>> As soon as an adversary joins your network, they can trace
>> data movement. So they can show that your node has handled pieces of
>> illegal files, identified by hash. 
> 
> 	uh yeah, that's how freenet works. You have encripted pieces of stuff that can be anything. 

That's where you're wrong. If an adversary is in your Freenet network,
they see all those encrypted pieces of stuff. And if they're running a
suitably modified version of the Freenet software, they know which of
those pieces are part of which files. Because they can fetch each file
of interest, and decompose the process of decryption and file assembly.

And, being part of the network, they know which pieces they get from
your node, and which pieces they send to it. That is, they know what
files you're handling.

>> And even though they can't really
>> prove that you accessed those files, they can say in court that they
>> can, and you'll be hard pressed to convince a jury otherwise.
> 
> 
> 	that may be how your nazi legal system works - you can be charged with anything and convicted without proof. That's not freenet's fault. 

You could say the same about Tor ;)

> 	anyway, it's quite funny that you robotically ignore all of tor's problems and are barefaced enough to badmouth the competition....

Dude, I don't ignore Tor's problems! Where we differ is that I'm willing
to work around them. And seriously, recommending Freenet is far^N worse
than recommending Tor.

>> I keep repeating that Tor is what we have now for working ~anonymously
>> online because it just fucking is! Sure, there's JonDoNym, but it's a
>> tiny network, and not many people use it. And it's not really that
>> friendly to anonymity, in any case. I2P is interesting, I admit, but
>> it's mainly a closed system. There are some clearnet exits, but the rest
>> of I2P doesn't like them.
> 
> 
> 	are you drunk or something? Again WHO gives a fuck about 'browsing the web'? Why would  cypherpunks be interested in 'anonymously' reading the jew york times? Which is something you can do with any free vpn anyway.

There's a lot more on the web than commercial media and shit.

>> So it's not that I'm saying Tor is the best, or whatever. It's literally
>> that there's nothing else that's widely enough used to provide any real
>> anonymity. Or at least, that I know of.
>>
>> So again, what super anonymous overlay networks have I missed? I'm all
>> ears :)
> 
> 
> 	maybe taking too much psychoactive substances isn't good for you. 
> 
> 	go back and try to grasp what the topic of the discussion is. 

It's you who lack much of a clue here :)

>>>> But even so, people who want anonymity, some of them
>>>> doing illegal stuff, _will_ end up using Tor. So why not help them use
>>>> it more safely?
>>>
>>>
>>> 	Oh, but I do. Whenver I have the chance, I tell darm markets operators to not post their contact information on facebook. 
>>
>> Is that the best you can do?
> 
> 
> 	yes. I can directly tell you to go fuck yourself. That's actually better. 

Yeah, well, we know that :) But I don't care. All I care about is
pointing out the weaknesses of your arguments. As a public service.



More information about the cypherpunks mailing list