-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
A. Johnson wrote:
Several of us [0] working on hidden services have been talking about adopting better terminology.
In general, I am in agreement with this, but I wonder if now might be a good time to unify Tor terminology with other similar technologies like I2P and Cjdns/Hyperboria.
It is interesting that you raise this, because we at I2P have been thinking the same thing. We discussed the issue of I2P terminology at 31C3 and decided that after 12 years of Tor/I2P coexistence, Tor had the upper hand with regard to commonplace terminology.
In our next release, we are changing most of our user-visible tunnel-related terms (I2P destination, tunnel, eepsite etc.) to instead use "Hidden services" in some way [0], to draw parallels to Tor hidden services - because as far as an end user is concerned, they do "pretty much" the same thing. And as far as we could tell, "hidden services" is now considered "too generic" for Tor [1], so it made sense to use it generically. Tags are now frozen for the 0.9.18 release, but we are still open to further discussion about terminology.
I have heard someone (forget who) propose that 'Dark Web' be dropped in favour of CipherSpace which could include all of these privacy perserving protocols, leaving terms like "OnionSpace" for Tor, "I2PSpace/EEPSpace" for I2P etc.
I am certainly in favor of this kind of collaborative approach. It's hard enough already trying to make this stuff understandable to end users (usability and UX of the tools themselves aside), without having multiple kinda-similar-but-not tools trying to do so in different ways. A "united concept front" would benefit tools _and_ users.
str4d
[0] http://zzz.i2p/topics/1780-hidden-services-done-right [1] http://www.dailydot.com/technology/tor-crowdfunding-hidden-services/
Cheers, Erik