5 ms·
That 30% is clearly a gross estimation, and certainly a wrong one with no data to back it up. Still, even though it is definitely counter productive to host on
by dejaime 8y ago
That 30% is clearly a gross estimation, and certainly a wrong one with no data to back it up. Still, even though it is definitely counter productive to host on a widely known host, it still does not expose any users, and that is the main point, not really protecting the host.
- Drdrdrq 8y agoGenuinly curious: if you don't protect the host, how can you protect the users? Host has the power to change any content, including BTC addresses, text,...
- jstanley 8y agoThe hoster certainly has the power to scam people, but he doesn't have the power to deanonymise them.
- mirimir 8y agoHe does, if he drops phone-home malware. As the FBI has done, at least twice.
- sandworm101 8y agoThat in turn only works where the users havent taken additional steps beyond Tor. Tor was never meant to solve every problem.
- pathseeker 8y agoIn this case: protecting the users == hiding their origin
- dmurray 8y agoNot if the content is cryptographically signed by the author, so at least some content can be served safely. I'm not sure if it's possible to have a dynamically generated website that encrypts or signs all content without having the signing key accessible to the host, though.
- thomasdd 8y agoHere is the Data: https://www.reddit.com/r/onions/comments/9yfwfb/my_personal_stats_on_working_onion_websites_after/ https://www.reddit.com/r/onions/comments/9yfwfb/my_personal_... About 7000 .onion sites worked before, about 3100 after...
- dejaime 8y agoExactly, all they have is some questionable data about onion links. Onion links is one way of using deep web, one of many.