Following on Aaron's suggestion, and further pushing my own wee agenda, what about PS? it works because even if someone confused the acronym for something else, it still works. And it matches well with HS/OS.
- Public (Onion) Service
- Peeled (Onion) Service
- Pseudo (Onion) Service <-- I like this as well, for various reasons
I don’t prefer these suggestions because 1. Public Onion Service: “Public” doesn’t describe the desired property well. A hidden service can be public in the sense that it is publicly known an accessible. Similarly, it suggests that other onion services are private, or members-only. 2. Peeled Onion Service: “Peeled” isn’t a very informative descriptor. What is peeled? What does "peeled” mean in this context? 3. Pseudo Onion Service: This makes it sound like the service it’s a fake onion service. But the security properties are very real.
- exposed onion service, in my mind, would lead to people thinking the
connection is in no way secure, because it is "exposed."… this may lead to the wrong understanding by a small but loud group of people.
I can see that, although I would say that we shouldn’t let the fringe choose how we communicate.
- bare onion service, if following Aaron's suggestion of dropping the
onion, would lead to BS, which is not really an acronym anyone would want to have. :)
BOS could work. Conversely, POS means “piece of shit” to me, but PS could work for the above suggestions.
I do like FS, but only if the performance improvements are quantifiably larger. Obviously the whole point of this endeavour is to make the speed and performance better, but until it is measured, I'm concerned "Fast (Onion) Service" may somewhat misrepresent the actual outcome. For example, hitting terribly slow "Fast Services", presumably because the service is so well loved that thousands of people use it, would upset some people not really understanding why it's slow.
I agree with this. Also, there are things that a direct onion service could do to improve security that a hidden service can’t do, such as providing multiple locations as options to the client and providing information about the Internet paths it takes to Tor relays.
With the above comment, that's why I like DS, because regardless of quantifiably increased performance, it is clear that it is a direct connection to the [Service], and there is no implied improvements beyond the statement that it's direct.
And, as Alec Muffett said, it has the advantage of being "attractively mundane”.
Cheers, Aaron