In my view, Monero is only one piece of the equation to digital freedom. You need the rest of the “encryption as identity” tech stack:
Monero is to Money, What Session is to Telegram, And Nostr is to Twitter.
Censorship on Twitter has given rise to this decentralized micro-blogging alternative that uses encryption as identity for unstoppable free speech.
I narrated this brand new animated video which goes over how Nostr works and why it matters: https://video.simplifiedprivacy.com/nostr/
Nostr is right now dominated by Bitcoin Maxis, we're organizing a Monero takeover. DM us on Nostr: npub14slk4lshtylkrqg9z0dvng09gn58h88frvnax7uga3v0h25szj4qzjt5d6
@ShadowRebel
>would force us to abandon IP address and DNS based systems such as federated ones.
Hey I hate the DNS like the next hacker. I think we can migrate to Tor HiddenServices and use Onion URLs for our mitra instances---if the need be. Afaik, mitra allows tor-only instances (they can federate to other onion instances, and/or to the clearnet ones over the tor exit nodes).
Definitely checkout mitra.social.
cc: @silverpill
@k4r4b3y @ShadowRebel Yes, self-hosted Tor instance is a way to go if you want to be completely independent. People who don't self-host can link their account to a public key and move to another instance if something bad happens, this is also supported (still experimental and undocumented though; I'll try to find some time to write an explainer).
Finally, the protocol can be extended to support nostr-like architecture with simple relays and rich clients. Maybe I will implement that too, or somebody else can start such project.
While I’ve been a huge fan of Tor for like 10+ years, the Tor network relies on a relatively small number of “centralized” node operators. In the long run, I2P might be a better option, though not yet sure…
@Saki I like I2P. I use it for my torrenting activities, it is great---no need for VPNs for torrenting anymore.
However, Tor has its own advantages, being more reachable by a greater number of people who might not be as tech savvy as us, is one of them. Like it or not, Tor's abundant exit nodes is one other advantage that it has over I2P. In the case of something like mitra.social microblogging service, if one hosts a onion-only instance of it, Tor allows him to federate with clearnet peers over the exit nodes, and thus allow the onion-only instances of mitra/pleroma to be also in connect with the greater fediverse.
>the Tor network relies on a relatively small number of “centralized” node operators.
Any sources that makes you say that?
Yes, currently Tor is much more convenient, no argument there :)
The # of exit nodes is relatively so small and the list is public, anyone that wants to block Tor traffic can do so easily. Plus, for good or for bad, I think the Tor project is US centerd, funded by various American governmental agencies. Bridges, snowflake… they’re more like P2P, but snowflake works via a monopolistic “broker“ that is Google (of all things…?). So in theory, it may be relatively easy to shut down snowflake or selectively block communications via Tor in general.
That said, if we do use hidden services, then exit nodes are irrelevant and everything may be fine (hopefully). I2P is relatively new; Tor vs. I2P is yet inconclusive—probably both have their own forte. I’d like to experiment (play with) both to get better intuition/understanding. Thanks for you insightful comments.
@Saki
>Tor network relies on a relatively small number of “centralized” node operators.
Here's a recent talk that argues to the contrary: https://media.ccc.de/v/camp2023-57172-a_guided_tour_through_tor_network_health_and_performance
Thanks for your comment & link. I too think currently the Tor network is much bigger. I like Tor too! At the same time, recently I have this vague feeling that i2p might be the future… Honestly not yet sure.