Tor: The Second-Generation Onion Router (2004)
svn.torproject.org
svn.torproject.org
That being said, I really like the new onion-v3 protocol that Tor added as it moves from the outdated 1024-bit rsa + sha1 addresses with 1024-bit DH and AES-128 to the state-of-the-art ed25519 for addresses and handshake as well as chacha20-poly1305 for encryption.
It doesn't seem clear to me that one is generally better than another, I think they complement each other.
Sadly, modern web design makes stuff like WWWoffle less useful than it used to be. Plus it's difficult to set up fully anonymous services on the far side of the link, I mean you're using Tor for a reason, and leaving breadcrumbs on the far side of the network is risky.
A good overview of the project is here: https://github.com/loki-project/loki-network/blob/master/doc...
other docs here: https://github.com/loki-project/loki-network/blob/master/doc...
Join our test-net now: https://discord.gg/eB8k6xQ or #llarp on freenode
Can you explain why you are concerned with the usage of AGPL? Are you hoping to make a closed-source hosted fork eventually?
This can get very copy-left philosophical very quickly, so I'll be brief. For transit technology, especially if adoption matters, the less a license infects downstream projects the better for ecosystem growth. For example, I have an open source Tor library that is MIT licensed and it statically links Tor. I want the world to use my library, commercial/closed and open alike. I would never be able to do that with Orchid and therefore would not touch the tech. Make what you build on your network AGPL, but the underpinnings themselves should be as restrictionless as possible. These are my opinions and I understand the other opinion of "if you want the right to use our stuff, you have to abide by our openness rules on your stuff" but just know that you are trading adoption for principles.
In case it helps immediately clarify: you absolutely will be able to use the Orchid platform to build commercial, closed source distributed, semi-distributed, and even centralized applications.
For philosophical background on this, I encourage reading the position of Richard Stallman on why the Ogg Vorbis library should not be licensed under GPL. Our mission (to decentralize software and communication) causes similar quirks.
https://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3
(Exactly what the boundaries are on the components and under what license they will be released is thereby not yet finalized as we continue to work on architecture, but there are at least a couple things we are building that will seriously be released under 0-BSD.)
My ISP would also randomly shut off my connection with some vague email about having compromised computer on my network i needed to fix. I'd have to call and make up some story to get them to turn my internet back on.
Essentially all kinds of people associate TOR with unsavory activity and as such put hoops to jump through when accessing stuff through tor. When you host an exit node your non tor traffic is considered to be outbound TOR traffic based on the IP the traffic originates from.
I cant imagine what would happen if I ran a node on the same network as our email server. I have to assume that we'd get blacklisted for spam quick if our mx resolved to a tor exit node IP.
Then there's the whole issue of more or less being guaranteed to be complicit in the distribution of CP. With really only safe harbor laws protecting you.
The main reason I have never run an exit node is fear that some overzealous LEO trying to make a name for himself is going to trace an IP off of a kiddie porn or drug market to my house and send in SWAT to break all of my windows and tie me up in court for months before deciding that charging me as an accomplice probably won't work this time because I didn't opt for the public defender.
For running a free market. It's fucked up.
>Because it is contested, the Court must make appropriate factual findings if it is to include it. The standard by which I do that is by a preponderance of the evidence. Ulbricht's directed violence here is and relates to the murders for hire which he is alleged to have commissioned and paid for. The Court must determine whether these allegations have been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence and I find that there is ample and unambiguous evidence that Ulbricht commissioned five murders as part of his efforts to protect his criminal enterprise and that he paid for these murders. There is no evidence that he was role-playing.
https://freeross.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Sentencing_2...
Maybe you think he didn't try to commission murders. Maybe you think judges shouldn't have so much latitude in deciding sentences. But the simple fact remains: Ulbricht is serving two life sentences mostly because the judge found that he tried to kill five people.
Sure scares me. Why wasn't he tried for the other crimes if his punishment is going to be based on them? This isn't a little difference to take into account when sentencing, these are important crimes on their own deserving a right to trial.
Or are all purveyors of the 'free market' automatically heroes in your eyes?
No, I don't even like the guy. Why must I consider someone a hero to feel they deserve a trial for their punished actions?
And, even if you know mathematically without a doubt that "they did it" in point-of-fact, and you have all the evidence to back you up such that you're really sure that if you did have a trial, it'd be an open-and-shut case... you still can't assume. Because it's not about whether you see guilt or innocence when you look at the evidence; it's about whether the jury sees guilt or innocence when they look at the evidence.
Jury nullification means a jury can just decide, arbitrarily, that somebody's not guilty of something. And then double-jeopardy means that you can't ask that question again. It's been resolved, permanently: the accused has been declared innocent, in the eyes of the law—however strong your proof was! And any further judgements by the courts have to take, as input, that innocent verdict that came out of the trial; not the proof-of-guilt that went in but didn't survive.
What that implies, to me, is that in the Al Capone example, he should never have been treated as anything other than a regular tax evader, and should only have received a regular tax-evader's sentence.
I'm reminded heavily of the recent p-hacking controversy in science. Imagine a world where we "pre-register" a trial when an investigation is begun, and are then forced to go through with it (and pretend the government has the infinite money required to enable this.) In this world, that trial would likely declare the suspect innocent a lot of the time... and all the evidence gathered to do so would be "used up" by that trial. You couldn't turn around and use the same evidence to prove that "because he's guilty of X, it's more likely that..." anything else. Because, in the eyes of the law, he isn't guilty of X, and anything that proves that, doesn't. The evidence itself was nullified when the verdict was.
In the real world, just to save time and money, we don't bother to prosecute trials we know we'll lose. But shouldn't the effects still be the same as if we did? An optimization shouldn't change the semantics of the system.
Honestly I don't think judges should sentence based on what was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is was so clear, why wasn't he charged for it?
https://web.archive.org/web/20160305020239/http://www.thegua...
You're omitting very important details.
I don't recognize this as a legitimate offense to law in a free society. I see it as, yes, "running a free market". That the state chooses to serve its interests by finding differently is unsurprising. But why do you?
My view is that if someone wants you dead, it's just a matter or time, or price. Maybe the Pope and POTUS are out of reach, the rest if you can't finish them with a handgun you can with an Ar-15.
John F. Kennedy would like a word.
Now they shut entire cities
Honestly, most kidnappings are parent without custody snagging their own kid. Rich kid kidnappings are a thing though.
US Conservatives: Do you really want European-style socialism assassins?
edit: i stand corrected
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht#Silk_Road,_arres...
Or are you just trying to manipulate public opinion?
It was explicitly a sentencing factor; the way federal criminal sentencing guidelines work, the charge sets the outer bound of punishment and influences the sentencing calculation, but other sentencing factors play a significant, often overwhelming, role in determining the actual sentence, so it's not at all inaccurate to say that a person is serving time for all of the things weighed in sentencing.
> On the last day of trial, Serrin Turner, the NY lead prosecutor, addressed the jury and stated that none of the six contracted murders-for-hire allegations occurred.
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ulbricht
It seems like it would be unlikely to take the murder-for-hire allegations into account in the sentencing after the prosecution have already stated that they were false allegations.
(1) Ones that cite no other source and should be viewed as extremely unreliable, and
(2) Ones that cite some other source, which should be reviewed and evaluated to assess the claim.
The one you point to is in the latter category, and cites as it's support a Guardian article which describes be prosecutor not as claiming that the six attempts to procure murders for hire had not occurred, but that he did not believe any of the murders Ulbricht had attempted to procure had occurred.
Do you have anything from a legitimate source on this? I'd like to read more. My understanding of this entire thing came largely from brief news reports on it.
I recall reading that the FBI had admin access to the site at the time the incriminating messages were sent, which I'm still looking for a source for, so it's quite likely that the messages were sent by the corrupt agents. Particularly when you consider the libertarian ideology around Ross and the site in general. Soliciting a murder would be completely out of character.
For what it's worth, the FBI agents on that case ended up going to jail as well. The case was a huge mess.