Tor Stinks re Traffic Analysis and Sybil (as do other networks)

[Punk-Stasi 2.0]

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 00:58:09 +0000
Peter Fairbrother <peter at tsto.co.uk> wrote:

> On 23/11/2019 23:23, Punk-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
> 
> > 	My guess is that the main reason for them to get as many users as they can is to justify funding.
> 
> Initially the main reason was to increase traffic, in order to make 
> traffic analysis harder. Really.

	Obviously if only a bunch of child murderers from the english military and the US military (tor's intended audience) use tor, then tor would be kinda pointless. That's why they want civilian users, to be used as human shields. But even syverson and co. state that beyond a certain point more users don't improve 'anonimity'.

	So I fully stand by what I said. It's obvious that the current hysterical focus on more users without any regard to the system's quality is just self-serving, self-interest. They are just a cancer, grabbing as much resources as they can. 

	Also, another important function of tor is to spread war propaganda in countries that the anglo-american nazis want to invade and destroy. Again, that means the tor mafia is not really interested in protecting any kind of 'anonimity', only in breaking the firewalls around iran, china and the like. 



> 
> I was around when the idea was first being discussed -
> Roger, Lucky, 
> Paul (in a smaller role than often stated), Len, Nick, a few others - 
> Matt dropped in occasionally, Ian and Caspar gave their 2c worth. For 
> some reason George and Andrei (mixmaster/mixminion math gurus) weren't 
> much involved.
> 
> Justifying funding is just a nice side-effect.


	It's more than a side-effect. 


 
> 
> On 25/11/2019 11:03, grarpamp wrote:
>  >> any low-latency web onion router - could not defeat The Man
>  >
>  > This seems yet to be lacking proof and perhaps
>  > cannot actually be said without it.
> 
> I thought I wrote that quite carefully, but perhaps I should rephrase 
> it: "Any practical likely-to-be-successful low-latency web onion router 
> cannot defeat The Man."
> 
> While a proof of that is not available, I do not know how to do it - do 
> you? Please tell.
> 
> That was certainly the general conclusion of the crypto 
> privacy/anonymity community at the time TOR was developed. 


	No, that's just the self-serving conclusion of the US-military-tor-mafia. 


> My conclusion 
> also, and I haven't seen anything since to make me change my mind.


	So the  inference here is that you have some sort of connection to the american-english nazi military. 


/usual tor propaganda trimmed.



> 
> 
> 
> 
> It should be noted that NSA do not say they can break TOR in practice, 
> and afaik there is no evidence that they have.

	WOW. HILARIOUS. Are you fucking reading this thread or what. I quoted your pal syverson explicitly stating that tor is broken.


> In all the "Dark Web" 
> busts I have read about there has been no evidence presented as part of 
> a general break in TOR. Maybe they can't (or just don't) break it.


	You're trolling, right? 



> 
> Of course, if they have broken TOR that is optimal for NSA - don't tell 
> anyone it is broken, so people keep using it. Remember Coventry/Enigma 
> (which never happened, but it is a good story).
> 
> Never Say Anything.
> 
> 
> Peter Fairbrother
>