• overflowOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    They make extremely strong claims, and strong claims require strong proof. I do not see such proof anywhere. What I see is that they play fast and loose with website visitor privacy and seem to focus mainly on token hyping.

    All the claims against tor and i2p are discussed in numerous academic papers and are acknowledged by the developers themselves not sure about the other projects putting that aside the network is in production rn so you could always test it and do a full writeup on all the flaws for everyone to see and discuss.Telling persons why they’ve decided to use tokens and not rely on pure altruism is not token hyping.

    • rysiek@szmer.info
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      All the claims against tor and i2p are discussed in numerous academic papers and are acknowledged by the developers themselves

      I was not talking about claims about i2p or Tor. I was talking about the claims Nym people make about their own project. I see little reason to trust them on those claims.

      You’re entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine. I don’t think we will see eye to eye here. In 10 years we will perhaps know; I expect Tor to still be around and useful then, as opposed to Nym.

      • overflowOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        I get that and I’m saying it’s available to use rn for you to dissect and I feel like if you have such strong opinions about it the very least you could do is put your money where you mouth is and test out the network and outline all it’s flaws so the community can reason about it instead of going hurr durr it’s bad I hate it

        • rysiek@szmer.info
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          I don’t think this phrase means what you think it means; I do in fact put my money where my mouth is.

          My mouth is clearly in the “blockchain-based privacy projects are very likely to be either misguided or outright scams, and this particular project has red flags all over” area. And so my money is on “I need to use tools that actually work; there is low likelihood that this project is such a tool; therefore I shall not waste my time on it”.

          Demanding that I spent hours analyzing a project that has so many red flags just because you happen do disagree with me is somewhat weird. I’ve spent enough time having this conversation at all, but hey, that’s good entertainment value!

          It’s not on me to disprove random project’s exorbitant claims (“prevents traffic analysis by an adversary capable of watching the entire network, including the NSA”). It’s on the project in question to prove them.

          So far I have not seen such proof. I have, on the other hand, seen quite a lot of things that suggest that these claims might, in fact, be unsubstantiated.

          I could retort by saying: prove to me that the project’s claims are true, “instead of going hurr durr it’s great I love it” (nice veiled ad hominem there, by the way). But I won’t, even though so far I have arguably provided more concrete reasons why I see this project as problematic than you did for your positive take on it.

          Telling persons why they’ve decided to use tokens and not rely on pure altruism is not token hyping.

          When the rubber hits the road, “using tokens” in this case means simply relying on greed. And relying on greed instead of altruism for something as fundamental as privacy is very telling. It’s not going to end well.