>>Astoria [is] both most effective and most usable when at its highest security level, the researchers say, so "Astoria is a usable substitute for the vanilla T

>>Astoria [is] both most effective and most usable when at its highest security level, the researchers say, so "Astoria is a usable substitute for the vanilla Tor client only in scenarios where security is a high priority." I'm still working through the research paper[1] linked at the end of the article, but if Astoria is as good as described, wouldn't Tor either adopt the same node selection policies, or people shift over to Astoria wholesale? [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1505.05173.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1505.05173.pdf EDIT: From the paper, quotes below provide much clearer context for the quote in the article: "From our evaluation of Astoria, it is clear that the performance-security trade-off is favorable only in its higher security configurations. [...] However, at lower security configurations, the performance offered by Tor is clearly better, and its security, only slightly worse. Therefore, Astoria is a usable substitute for the vanilla Tor client only in scenarios where security is a high priority."