if tor has gone to shit can /g/ make its own version?
>>62354984
1.) /g/ is memeing you about Tor. /g/ tends to focus on all the wrong things and come to inaccurate conclusions about many things.
2.) No. They can make a logo, though.
Great idea! I can make the logo
No one would host the servers
>>62355239
I would
>>62354984
There is no need when there is another networks, like freenet, cjdns,etc
>>62355271
U R a big guy
>>62354984
There isn't anything wrong with Tor. It's just a bunch of technological illiterate /pol/tards triggered about some blog post made by the devs. It's never been successfully cracked. And I doubt the government will try seeing how they need it to be secure for their own operations.
>>62355560
Well they'll probably try, government is a huge, sprawling thing, and the right hand is seldom talking to the left. But the Tor busts have all been one of two things: Either bad opsec (logging into accounts tied to your real identity while using Tor, for instance) or browser exploits. Keep your shit updated and disable Javascript to defend against the latter. Is that an absolute defense, no it isn't. But if you're important enough that three-letter agencies will burn a zero-day to attack you you have bigger problems, and had better know your shit well enough that you're not asking for advice on fucking 4chan.
>>62355560
Most certainly tor is a hp
I'll host the wiki!
We already have a non-shit version. It's called I2P. It's been around for ages.
>>62356100
Exactly. If the government is using a correlation attack or burning an exploit on you. There are going to catch you tor or not. They've never found any easy way to uncover users. The last big attack they did was that stuff with those researchers a few years ago and it only worked because the Tor Developers trusted academics. Now they know they'll fuck them over for FBI cash so they black list nodes without hesitation regardless of the excuse the operator gives.