On Sat, Sep 5, 2020, 6:36 PM coderman <[1]coderman@protonmail.com>
   wrote:

   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

   On Saturday, September 5, 2020 5:07 PM, Karl <[2]gmkarl@gmail.com>
   wrote:

   This email is shared from a place of forthrightness (and hope).

   [3]https://github.com/ipfs/notes/issues/37

   Just to add, I suspect the reason that the state of public anonymity
   tools is not stronger is that the existing international powerholders,
   whose power could be reduced by widespread accessible anonymity, take
   diverse action to slow the release and hinder the effective use of the
   research.

   ... see also:

   """

   Dear [4]@seanlynch you are belligerent. I am in fact not saying that
   Tor or I2p aren't worth using. Come off your platitude for a few
   minutes and think about people who may be in a more high risk situation
   than yourself. For those people Tor isn't good enough because their
   adversary may well be the NSA and the FBI and GCHQ and so on. I am
   welcome to put forth my efforts into mix networks but not because you
   say so speaking from a place of belligerence. I am a fan of Tor and I
   do not go around telling people they can't have any protection. Your
   delusional caricature of myself is offensive and alarming. Check
   yourself before you wreck yourself."""

   - [5]https://github.com/ipfs/notes/issues/37#issuecomment-687661383

   :P~

   TL;DR: for the IPFS Tor support issue:

   IPFS wants a security audit before merging Tor support.  Tor support
   was volunteer effort - no paid security review possible. Thus - IPFS
   does not support Tor :/

   The above relation was shared by someone who appears to be a new ipfs
   developer, over two years after the Tor integration work started, after
   it was _completed_ and _used_ in other forks.  A lead ipfs developer
   named whyrusleeping had collaborated with the Tor development and
   supported it throughout that thread.  whyrusleeping's name is all over
   the source code everywhere; the turn-down due to security-auditing
   concern was expressed by a guy who's name I do not recognise, and
   whyrusleeping made no further comments.
   Possibly they had a dev meeting without Tor representation and haven't
   revisited the issue.  (It's also possible some random guy just made a
   comment that ended the discussion, too, from my perspective, since I
   haven't looked them up.)
   It looks like all parties are taxed and upset at this point.  Obviously
   we need both Tor and new tech to be usable and supportable.  I wish I
   knew how to contribute.
   (I have problems forming certain kinds of new memories that started
   before I learned golang, so I was pretty frustrated with my ability to
   contribute when I first commented on that issue years ago.  I just
   don't understand go sourcecode.  It's so weird.  I could do it with a
   lot of slow effort and tutorials, or maybe a quick reference that
   translated to another language and libraryset)

   best regards,

   Thank you for your modeling of anonymity.  We all need to do this, to
   protect each other and our important work, and spread behaviors that do
   that.

References

   1. mailto:coderman@protonmail.com
   2. mailto:gmkarl@gmail.com
   3. https://github.com/ipfs/notes/issues/37
   4. https://github.com/seanlynch
   5. https://github.com/ipfs/notes/issues/37#issuecomment-687661383