Unlike Tor, which allows access to both its hidden services and the regular web, I2P is inward-facing.
You can access clearnet through i2p.
Freenet, once a peer contender, faded after CVE-2019-13123.
It’s Hyphanet now…
Is it still an FBI honeypot hyphanet?
Dunno… sources?
Wikipedia in the vulnerabilities section court case in the Peel Region of Ontario, Canada R. v. Owen, 2017 ONCJ 729 (CanLII), illustrated that law enforcement do in fact have a presence, after Peel Regional Police located who had been downloading illegal material on the Freenet network.[57] The court decision indicates that a Canadian Law Enforcement agency operates nodes running modified Freenet software in the hope of determining who is requesting illegal material.
The modified bit is worrying, the rest is BAU, i’m sure a lot of Tor exit notes are in a DC in Utah.
vetted sources, ofc.
Does anyone has the links to F*ck Society and Free Voice?
I think this article is generated by AI.
Fake CVE numbers. For example, “critical vulnerability (CVE-2021-34527) revealed that Tor Browser leaked real IPs under certain configurations”, but if you look it up, it is about Windows Print Spooler.
I2P sites also look fake.
The debian package is calledi2pd, notpurplei2p@silverpill >Developers in China use it to distribute tools and circumvent the Great Firewall.
Tbh, Chinese developers typically use shadowsocks or vmess protocol proxies; they do not use i2p. Futhermore, no one in China knows about i2p, even though its usability is better than Tor.
“No one”? Hrm. Press X.
Could be. I didn’t write it, just passed it on.
This is a very good write-up. I have found I2P to be rather slow when I’ve tried to play with it, and I don’t know if that’s a misconfiguration on my part, or if I2P would benefit from something like the proof-of-work defenses that Tor has implemented, which have made hidden services work much more reliably. I’m obviously aware that any overlay network is going to be slower than the main internet. But, at least on my system, I found I2P to be even slower than Tor, which I was not expecting.
Also, I would consider myself to be a fairly technical user, and I2P even seems a bit daunting for me. I think one thing that makes Tor so well used is the fact that Tor browser exists where it’s already pre-configured to just work as soon as you open it. I currently even host my Monero node as a Tor hidden service with the proof of work defenses enabled and a couple of other hidden onion services for my home assistant setup.
Edit: With even supposedly democratic Western governments beginning to censor the internet, I am thinking very seriously that at some point it may be required to use Tor and I2P to actually access useful information on the internet and that there will be a bifurcation of the internet into those who know and those who don’t.
Currently i use my podcast app (AntennaPod), F-Droid, several Monero wallets, Molly (signal fork), and SimpleX all over the tor SOCKS5. I don’t have any reason to do so except to generate cover traffic for those who are using it for more necessary purposes and to understand how the networks operate as far as bandwidth, etc., are concerned.
Every time it is possible to access anything as a hidden service, I will do so. I have my F-Droid repos, for example, using their hidden service equivalents instead of the clearnet ones. Just because I can. And I love having F-Droid repositories that are hidden services only.
Edit 2: It took me 31 minutes to pull 51 megabytes of data to synchronize my Monero wallet over an i2p hs. An onion tor hs would have had that done several times over in that time
I haven’t looked at the article yet and only superficially poked around with I2P, but I think the idea is that user adoption is the key to better speeds and reliability given the P2P nature. That said, I found it to be daunting as well just getting into it.
Privacy and security in general are like that for me because a lot of the pitfalls come with how you use the tech and not just the structures they provide.
I think 300KB/s is around the max possible in the current implementation:
Encryption, latency, and how a tunnel is built makes it quite expensive in CPU time to build a tunnel. This is why a destination is only allowed to have a maximum of 6 IN and 6 OUT tunnels to transport data. With a max of 50 kb/sec per tunnel, a destination could use roughly 300 kb/sec traffic combined ( in reality it could be more if shorter tunnels are used with low or no anonymity available). Used tunnels are discarded every 10 minutes and new ones are built. This change of tunnels, and sometimes clients that shutdown or lose their connection to the network will sometimes break tunnels and connections. An example of this can be seen on the IRC2P Network in loss of connection (ping timeout) or on when using eepget.
I’ve seen speeds in the Mb/s range, although rarely.
I think the idea is that user adoption is the key to better speeds and reliability given the P2P nature
That is correct. i2p is designed such that peers are expected (required?) to share some bandwidth to be on the network.Of course, that bandwidth stays in-network (unlike Tor which supports “exit nodes”) so it is less risky to share.
Edit: I’m totally wrong, oops
It’s not required but default on. there’s a setting for it, but also if it detects from your IP that you are in a risky country, it’ll not enable the functionality to bridge other traffic
Yep, this is the same thing that happened last time. I got my Monero wallet up and running over an I2P node again, and I can barely get 100 Kb/s. It will jump to a max of 1Mb/s rarely and then drop right back down again. On tor i get more like 400Kb/s average instead of barely 100.
