Also, we know that a major problem with TOR is that LE/Intel agencies run their own nodes, and if you bounce through enough of them, or you got through a honeypot exit node, they can deanonymize you, this has happened before, and it probably happens more than is publically known.
That and if you run a node, and the US government finds out, and they don’t like you, they will shut it down, raid you.
Meanwhile, the multi-stage packet encryption and relay method of I2P makes it much more difficult to decrypt a packet and then also figure out which parts of which packet are going to who.
You really should consider the fact that there are parties who have a vested interest in making people doubt Tor. Tor is the best option we have by far and is currently far superior than i2p. It is designed to keep anonymity even with compromised nodes. Doing a deanonymizing attack is extremely hard and costly and only has a small chance of actually succeeding and that’s before the new crypto algorithm roles out which makes this kind if attack pretty much impossible. Nothing is perfect but Tor does a pretty good job. It also has some of the most robust censorship resistance tools available and works in Russia and Iran. They solved the denial of service issue with a proof of work system a while back so performance wise Tor is now much better.
Meanwhile I2p still has issues with its design which the developers acknowledge on the website. This isn’t meant to be hate against i2p but simply an analysis of the real world facts. I2p shouldn’t be used anywhere where anonymity is critical as it is vulnerable to attack due to some outstanding issues with its design. Even outside out deanonymity, i2p still has issues with denial of service attacks and it doesn’t have a simple solution for name resolution which is rather dangerous. I like it and concept and run my own node but I wouldn’t rely on it for survival. Building a p2p network is really really hard which is why Tor uses a more centralized approach.
Hard disagree.
What flaws are you talking about?
Also, we know that a major problem with TOR is that LE/Intel agencies run their own nodes, and if you bounce through enough of them, or you got through a honeypot exit node, they can deanonymize you, this has happened before, and it probably happens more than is publically known.
That and if you run a node, and the US government finds out, and they don’t like you, they will shut it down, raid you.
Meanwhile, the multi-stage packet encryption and relay method of I2P makes it much more difficult to decrypt a packet and then also figure out which parts of which packet are going to who.
You really should consider the fact that there are parties who have a vested interest in making people doubt Tor. Tor is the best option we have by far and is currently far superior than i2p. It is designed to keep anonymity even with compromised nodes. Doing a deanonymizing attack is extremely hard and costly and only has a small chance of actually succeeding and that’s before the new crypto algorithm roles out which makes this kind if attack pretty much impossible. Nothing is perfect but Tor does a pretty good job. It also has some of the most robust censorship resistance tools available and works in Russia and Iran. They solved the denial of service issue with a proof of work system a while back so performance wise Tor is now much better.
Meanwhile I2p still has issues with its design which the developers acknowledge on the website. This isn’t meant to be hate against i2p but simply an analysis of the real world facts. I2p shouldn’t be used anywhere where anonymity is critical as it is vulnerable to attack due to some outstanding issues with its design. Even outside out deanonymity, i2p still has issues with denial of service attacks and it doesn’t have a simple solution for name resolution which is rather dangerous. I like it and concept and run my own node but I wouldn’t rely on it for survival. Building a p2p network is really really hard which is why Tor uses a more centralized approach.