7 ms·
I really like I2P as a project, and I think it gets a lot of things right. For example having every network participant relay some internal traffic, instead of
by wongarsu 3y ago
I really like I2P as a project, and I think it gets a lot of things right. For example having every network participant relay some internal traffic, instead of relying on altruism from relay operators, makes it much harder for a single entity to control enough hops to deanonymize users.
Sadly, outside of torrenting I2P doesn't seem to have much traction, losing out to the better funded tor project
- bilegeek 3y agoTorrenting is I2P's foot in the door for much wider adoption, which would help drive other types of usage. I really hope it takes off, especially since qBitTorrent 4.6 just integrated support; the current stagnation of filesharing, especially w.r.t. needing a VPN for everything, needs some shaking up.
- birdyrooster 3y agoWe will still need VPNs to get good connectivity to other residential ISPs until some government entity (or market condition) inspires ISPs to invest in more hardware and peering with each other. CDNs and VPN providers are now sadly a requirement for the internet to work the way we expect it to.
- _factor 3y agoWith modern tech, I should be able to launch a web server, give you my ipv6 that never changes, route a few ports through fw and we’re good.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- INGSOCIALITE 3y agoWith modern tech I should never have any identifier that doesn’t change whatsoever. Mac,ip,etc should randomize every nth second lol
- KAMSPioneer 3y agoIt's already possible (and quite easy) to assign a static IPv6 for incoming traffic e.g. webserver, then configure a private and constantly rotating IPv6 for all outgoing traffic.
- pdimitar 3y agoCan you share a link, please?
- INGSOCIALITE 3y agoI second this motion
- edrxty 3y agoHow do VPNs improve connectivity between residential ISPs?
- _lvbh 3y agoNet neutrality is dead. For some reason, I get much faster torrent speeds with a VPN than without.
- 0x6c6f6c 3y agoNot OP, but I'd expect it's so that separate residential locations can communicate directly with another, bypassing limitations imposed by the ISP, double NAT, dynamic IPs, etc. Depending on region ISPs have purposefully blocked residential users from exposing public Internet services.
- ribosometronome 3y agoDoes I2P torrenting operate at remotely comparable speeds to without? I recall hearing that it was vaguely frowned upon with Tor back in the day for saturating the networ and it didn't seem like there was much reason to use it over basically any VPN, especially speed wise, assuming your motive was to avoid copyright notices.
- IYasha 3y agoBut isn't it enough to use it just for metadata and not the pyload itself? (provided that's possible)
- londons_explore 3y agoIf you want to avoid copyright notices, then you need to do it for the payload too. That's because a copyright holder could easily host a copy of some pirate film on your new network, and then just see the destination of the data packets.
- Spoom 3y agoWait, but if the copyright holder is sending the actual payload to you as a client, couldn't you make the argument that they implicitly authorized you to have it? AFAIK, cops can't deal you actual drugs and then arrest you for it.
- londons_explore 3y agoIf that was a concern, they could always cut off the connection right before sending the data packet.
- skrowl 3y agoCops can absolutely do that. Cops posing as prostitutes can arrest you for attempting to purchase sex from them as well.
- 3y ago
- tryptophan 3y agoI remember I2p torrents being horrendously slow, like 20kbps at max(do you even remember the last time someone used kbps as units?) for popular stuff. Has that changed in the last few years?
- mhitza 3y agoI get on the regular up to 200-500kbps depending on number of peers, and their router configuration (I have my bandwidth configured above the defaults, which are very low). I understand that is unheard of from someone living in the "instant access era" but their protocol has a cost.
- e12e 3y agoHm. Regular torrents tend to touch the 100 Mbps to gpbs range - so not really an alternative?
- OfSanguineFire 3y agoOne of the reasons people were wary of Freenet, where every user would participate in the hosting, was that if the encryption algorithm was ever broken, people would undoubtedly be revealed to have been passing CSAM along. Unwittingly, but still. Does I2P’s model not spark the same concerns?
- ensignavenger 3y agoDo ISPs worry about relaying TLS traffic because if the encryption is ever broken, it will be revealed that they were relaying CSAM? There isn't any difference to an i2p node relaying encrypted data and and ISP doing it.
- OfSanguineFire 3y agoISPs are, especially in the wake of mergers in many countries, large corporations with lawyers. An I2P node might be run by an individual who lacks that security, and this is just something that can be used against that person if he comes to the attention of the authorities for whatever reason. It’s like the risks of individuals’ running Tor exit nodes, which are well known.
- heavyset_go 3y agoIt's the same risk as running a Tor exit node: you getting arrested, having all of your electronics confiscated and facing life ruining charges because someone was caught downloading illegal content from IP addresses that point to your servers. Even if charges get dropped, or you win in court, that's quite a burden.
- mistercheph 3y agoDoes any transmission method where the message is even partially concealed from the messenger not spark the same concern? E.g. Postal services. I am pretty sure not blaming the messenger for the message is a legal notion that predates Hammurabi's code.
- fsflover 3y agoThere is a big difference between storing CSAM (Freenet) and transiently transferring it (I2P).
- warner25 3y ago> gets a lot of things right... having every network participant relay some internal traffic There are trade-offs. The Tor Project has its reasons for not doing this (from https://support.torproject.org/alternate-designs/ https://support.torproject.org/alternate-designs/): "...many Tor users cannot be good relays — for example, some Tor clients operate from behind restrictive firewalls, connect via modem, or otherwise aren't in a position where they can relay traffic. Providing service to these clients is a critical part of providing effective anonymity for everyone, since many Tor users are subject to these or similar constraints and including these clients increases the size of the anonymity set..." "...we need to better understand the risks from letting the attacker send traffic through your relay while you're also initiating your own anonymized traffic. Three different research papers describe ways to identify the relays in a circuit by running traffic through candidate relays and looking for dips in the traffic while the circuit is active. These clogging attacks are not that scary in the Tor context so long as relays are never clients too..."
- vGPU 3y agoDoesn’t that make i2p less vulnerable to an issue tor suffers from - that of hostile-owned relays and exit points? I remember reading something about how a large part of them were controlled by US intel.
- warner25 3y agoThat was the parent comment's point. My point is that there are trade-offs. You make the network less vulnerable to that particular attack, and open up other vulnerabilities instead. Anonymous communication service design is full of such trade-offs. There's a theory that intelligence agencies control many relays. I've haven't seen evidence of it. Tor does its best to be secure even when it can't trust the relays.
- j45 3y agoNot often a network protocol / communication thread breaks out Neat point. I wonder if the percentage of bandwidth shared could be relative to the speed or openness of network available?
- derpherpsson 3y agoI2P has a community of people that actually use the darktubes, as opposed to Tor. 99% of Tor users use Tor to browse the vanilla internets just. There is no real 'Tor community'