3 ms·

>Now, you can certainly argue that the old system was broken by insecurity and thereby had to die. But that just means the entire concept of onion services was

>Now, you can certainly argue that the old system was broken by insecurity and thereby had to die. But that just means the entire concept of onion services was some temporary art project An insecure Tor is less than worthless. Tor is not trying to be a community or be the next geocities. It is an evolving security and privacy project, adapting to the landscape as it needs to, in an effort to anonymize and protect it's users. >a platform on which people could build the kind of ecosystem we have on the "normal" world wide web This was never the goal of Tor, and may be the source of your frustrations. Tor has one fundamental mission: deploying free and open source anonymity and privacy technologies. It is a shame that links will be broken, and it sucks that you feel like something you built up is being torn down. But arguing that it should be kept insecure because of the friends you've made along the way is exactly the opposite of Tor's mission statement.

saurik 5y ago
> It is a shame that links will be broken, and it sucks that you feel like something you built up is being torn down. FWIW, your comment is confusing either identities or motives: I have never myself built a .onion site, in no small part because I saw clearly a long time ago that the ecosystem was doomed: I carefully consider all of the tech I use for "sustainability". I am merely someone who is sitting on the sidelines, attempting to--and apparently succeeding, based on your sibling comment--at providing some context and translation in a disagreement. > Tor is not trying to be a community or be the next geocities. ... This was never the goal of Tor, and may be the source of your frustrations. I even have a lot of sympathy for your attempt here to seemingly agree with me that the .onion ecosystem could never be taken seriously for a "world wide web"-like ecosystem... but, then you seem to fail to realize the context of me responding to someone who was willing to believe that .onion could work and felt that the websites in question merely should have somehow updated sooner (forgetting that the web is, well, a "web" <- a mistake I actually think is understandable as it isn't necessarily immediately obvious). > But arguing that it should be kept insecure because of the friends you've made along the way is exactly the opposite of Tor's mission statement. I absolutely did no such thing, and it is disingenuous to claim such after literally quoting me providing and admitting the opposite argument in my comment. If you re-read my point, I even sketch out a potential securable transition plan for a "road not taken" that doesn't involve Tor being "kept insecure". The real travesty, frankly, is that Tor failed to understand the implications of what they had built and prepare people for the future.
- ziddoap 5y ago
  You continually mentioned community, and seemed to portray yourself as an operator that refused to update to V3 to maintain your V2 community. I tried to empathize with that. My bad. The 'friends along the way' was a cheeky comment referring to the communities you mentioned here and in other comments several times. It is certainly not the opposite of what you argued -- you are arguing for community and interoperability, and argued that Tor should maintain the insecure version for that interoperability. To wit, you said "What I want, what everyone in the tor project comment thread on the depreciation post wants, is for v2+v3.". This is equal to "Maintain the insecure version, do not deprecate it, because the community wants it". We're obviously of two separate minds here. I didn't mean to step on toes or seem disingenuous. Just frustrated when I see people complain about necessary security upgrades, which were known over a year in advance, in a security product.

saurik 5y ago

> It is a shame that links will be broken, and it sucks that you feel like something you built up is being torn down. FWIW, your comment is confusing either identities or motives: I have never myself built a .onion site, in no small part because I saw clearly a long time ago that the ecosystem was doomed: I carefully consider all of the tech I use for "sustainability". I am merely someone who is sitting on the sidelines, attempting to--and apparently succeeding, based on your sibling comment--at providing some context and translation in a disagreement. > Tor is not trying to be a community or be the next geocities. ... This was never the goal of Tor, and may be the source of your frustrations. I even have a lot of sympathy for your attempt here to seemingly agree with me that the .onion ecosystem could never be taken seriously for a "world wide web"-like ecosystem... but, then you seem to fail to realize the context of me responding to someone who was willing to believe that .onion could work and felt that the websites in question merely should have somehow updated sooner (forgetting that the web is, well, a "web" <- a mistake I actually think is understandable as it isn't necessarily immediately obvious). > But arguing that it should be kept insecure because of the friends you've made along the way is exactly the opposite of Tor's mission statement. I absolutely did no such thing, and it is disingenuous to claim such after literally quoting me providing and admitting the opposite argument in my comment. If you re-read my point, I even sketch out a potential securable transition plan for a "road not taken" that doesn't involve Tor being "kept insecure". The real travesty, frankly, is that Tor failed to understand the implications of what they had built and prepare people for the future.

ziddoap 5y ago
You continually mentioned community, and seemed to portray yourself as an operator that refused to update to V3 to maintain your V2 community. I tried to empathize with that. My bad. The 'friends along the way' was a cheeky comment referring to the communities you mentioned here and in other comments several times. It is certainly not the opposite of what you argued -- you are arguing for community and interoperability, and argued that Tor should maintain the insecure version for that interoperability. To wit, you said "What I want, what everyone in the tor project comment thread on the depreciation post wants, is for v2+v3.". This is equal to "Maintain the insecure version, do not deprecate it, because the community wants it". We're obviously of two separate minds here. I didn't mean to step on toes or seem disingenuous. Just frustrated when I see people complain about necessary security upgrades, which were known over a year in advance, in a security product.