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

Mirimir mirimir at
Thu Aug 9 15:01:46 PDT 2018

On 08/09/2018 01:09 PM, juan wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 10:25:12 -0700
> Mirimir <mirimir at> wrote:
>> On 08/08/2018 11:01 PM, juan wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 20:44:53 -0700
>>> Mirimir <mirimir at> 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. 
> 	not useful for what? 

Huh? Are you retarded? Sure, you and your friends can setup some super
duper mix network, but it won't do you any fucking good. Because, you
know, you're the only people using it. And once an adversary gets
access, you're totally screwed.

>> You
>> can fume all you want about some ideal that ought to exist. But that
>> alone doesn't really help much.
> 	you mean, discussing the 'technical details' doesn't 'help' whereas  US military propaganda 'helps'? Well, of course, that's true, depending on what is being 'helped'...

Sure, "discussing the 'technical details'" helps. But not if you're just
bitching about what's wrong with existing stuff. And unless you actually
mobilize some support and participation for whatever you want. I haven't
heard much of that from you.

>> 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. 
> 	oh, that's nice =) (just in the highly unlikely case that you are trying to mock me, bear in mind that the joke is on you =) ).

No mocking involved. I do agree. And you know, I really don't love those
Americunt fascists either. Even though I'm living there now.

>> But that's not the only reason. There's also the
>> latency vs usability tradeoff. 
> 	Which I think I acknowledged...

Yes, you did. Barely. And them you hand-waved it away ;)

>> Or even if it is, maybe you ought to be
>> promoting them?
> 	And what am I doing here? 

So far, you've promoted Freenet. Which is arguably _worse_ than Tor.

>> But not Freenet! That shit is ~20 years out of date. More below.
> 	Keep trolling. So decentralized storage is 20 years out of date whereas using php to serve files behind a low quality proxy is the 'technology' of the next americunt century. 

No, Freenet is 20 years out of date. Because it makes _no_ attempt to
obscure IP addresses of peers. As far as I know, there is no protocol
for decentralized storage that does obscure IP addresses of peers. And
so you need to use some overlay network. Such as VPNs and/or Tor.

Or in this case, I2P. Because there's no need to reach clearnet stuff.
However, I2P also has its issues. It's a lot smaller than Tor. And every
participant must be a router, analogous to a Tor relay. Which means that
participants attract more attention, and may get their IPs blacklisted.

For decentralized storage generally, I like IPFS. For example, a year or
two ago I put "Fast Data Transfer via Tor" on IPFS.[0] And even though
I'm not currently running any IPFS nodes, it's still there. Because
enough people pinned it. If I hadn't disclosed that, it would be
nontrivial for adversaries to link it to me.


> 	by the way, freenet is 18 years old and your employer the tor corporation is 15 years old. So I guess tor is 'almost' ~20 years out of date? 
> 	And you know, there's even older stuff than freenet, like the p2p networks based on gnutella and they are of course superior to bittorrent, let alone to 'web based' 'solutions'.

Really? Gotta a link for that? I've been wondering where to get some
current music at a decent price. I will _not_ use Spotify!

>>> 	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? 
> 	We were talking about assasination politics. And you barefacedly declared that tor was 'good enough' for end users, 'good enough' for hidden services, and 'good enough' for killing trump. So here the 'crypto anarchy stuff' is AP. 
> 	Now, are you trolling or what? You can't remember the topic of the discussion from one message to the next? Or?

OK, so how are you planning to use Augur or whatever without revealing
your IP address? And actually, if I said that Tor would work with Augur,
I was wrong. Because Ethereum wallets use UDP, which Tor doesn't handle.
So you're left with nested VPN chains. Unless someone forks to I2P. But
that too seems iffy, given how small I2P is.

>> 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. 
> 	Not just email, but any protocol that doesn't require 'instant' messages. Which I imagine includes AP.

Maybe. But I can't quite imagine a blockchain client via high-latency
networks. I mean, the classic Bitcoin client is barely usable via VPNs.
However, I'm no cryptocurrency expert, so maybe it'd be workable.

>> 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. 

That's a cop out, Juan. And it's a crucial issue, because any ~anonymous
overlay network will involve managing remote servers anonymously.

>> Well, I was hoping for some constructive discussion. But that's hard
>> with you. But whatever, we are what we are.
> 	You are expecting me to provide something that doesn't exist and can't exist?  And since nobody can provide a fast and secure network, you just keep parroting tor propganda? 
> 	Well I guess that's your job description?

You say propaganda. I say objective discussion.

>>>> 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 
>>> 	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_ :)
> 	...not entirely sure what your remark means? Anyway, hopefully the reason why tor is so 'popular' is clear enough by now.
> 	But I guess you are still ignoring the reason for tor to exist. It is for americunt nazis to promote 'democracy' in 'repressive' regimes. 

Sure, that's part of it. So are you saying that you'd rather live in
China than in the US? What "repressive" regimes do you like?

>> And seriously, are you following the published literature on overlay
>> networks? 
> 	No. I'm following tor propaganda by you and grarpamp in lists like this one. 

Good for you, then.

>>> 	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.
> 	Less people. You don't do stupidly risky things if you know you are getting caught. You do them when you drink the koolaid from the US military like Ulbricht did.

Well, that's where we differ. I do stupidly risky things because what I
do is up to me. And because it's fun. Cowering in fear ain't my trip.

And DPR? He got nailed because he made too many stupid mistakes. And
some of his collaborators got nailed because one of those stupid
mistakes was keeping records, including images of their fucking
passports, on his fucking laptop. Which he stupidly carried around, and
let the feds grab while FDE was unlocked.

>>>> 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.
> 	I don't believe what? It's obvious that more secure stuff has tradeoffs. And it's obvious that the more secure stuff doesn't get promoted for political reasons.

There is no "doesn't get promoted". Go promote it yourself.

>>>> 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?
> 	lol - you are not only a govt agent, but a troll =)
> 	So your ideal is to steal 10 millions from taxpayers and dollar holders so that the worst scum on the planet like your pal syverson builds a fake anonimity network for the US military. 
> 	Your ideal is the most toxic kind of americunt fascism. At least be upfront with that. 

Whatever, dude :)

>>>> 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,
> 	what do you mean, 'in your network'? 

I mean, one of your peers.

>> 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 your source for that claim is? 

It was in the news a couple years ago. There's even a notice on the
Freenet website about it. Making excuses. That ex cop in Philadelphia,
who's still jailed for refusing to disclose his FDE passphrase, was one
of them.


| When journalists contacted the Bureau of Criminal Investigation
| of North Dakota, the law enforcement agency has declined to comment
| the case. However, has found some information regarding
| an ICAC (Internet Crimes against Children) Task Force operation,
| “Black Ice Project”, running a Freenet Workshop in 2014. They quoted
| this on their website:
| “This session will describe the basic functioning of Freenet, how
| persons exchanging child abuse material, the system’s vulnerabilities
| and how the Black Ice project exploits them.”

For background on the Black Ice Project, see

>>>> 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 ;)
> 	but tor is technically inferior to decentralized storage. I'm just pointing out that freenet is superior in some key ways, like being decentralized and not funded by the enemy. Doesn't mean I'm selling freenet though, which I am not. 

You have no clue who funded Freenet, do you?

>>> 	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. 
> 	So how do you work around tor problems? 

First, I _always_ use Tor via nested VPN chains. Using Whonix to
mitigate against leaks. Or between remote servers and VPS that I've
leased as anonymously as possible, via nested VPN chains and Tor, using
well-mixed Bitcoin.

Second, I _never_ share anything online, even via nested VPN chains and
Tor, that could link to my meatspace identity.

>> And seriously, recommending Freenet is far^N worse
>> than recommending Tor.
> 	Well, far^0 = 1, far^-1 = 0.1 etc

Good one :)

>>> 	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.
> 	sure - so link some of it - oops - as usual you have no evidence for your claims? =)

You're joking, right?

OK, how about aka y5fmhyqdr6r7ddws.onion aka
ecc-anarplex.i2p aka anarplex.cryptogroup?

Lots of dark markets too. And lots of CP, if you're into that shit. But
hey, that's mostly what Freenet is good for ;) And lots of about
anything you can imagine.

Such as
which is a backup of the Black Ice Project stuff that got taken down.

which covers SOD with amazing candor.

>>> 	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.
> 	Oh that's fine. Because the real public service is your tor proganpada being exposed for what it is =)

Yeah, yeah, yeah ...

> 	Remember, three days ago you made this  propaganda claim :
> 	"Adequate anonymity for assassins is a much harder problem. However,
> evidence from .onion marketplaces and child porn forums also suggests
> that Tor would be good enough. " 
> 	completely shameless are you? 

Dude, many .onion marketplaces and child porn forums remain. It's just
that the clueless ones got nailed. Also the ones that CMU people found,
exploiting a bug in Tor.

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list