>>106570622
If you read my post in
>>106570549 then think about what i2p is.. It has the same vulnerability to mass logging from ISPs that Tor does. Aside from that, most tor nodes are in datacenters whereas most i2p nodes are random peoples' computers. But are random peoples' computers safer than datacenters? Most people run corporate malware from dozens or hundreds of entities, so the raw # of organizations with theoretical backdoors into i2p nodes could possibly be higher than the amount when a linux nerd runs a relay on a rpi in his basement or on a VPS. I2P also has no funding and no clout, so they have no connections in the community to help them shut down ddosers, they have fewer connections to academia so less research is focused on their software, they have no significant donations which means they have no one building normie-usable software on top of it. I2P has more reliability issues and bandwidth limitations. Exiting to the normal internet is not first-class functionality actually embedded into I2P.
The only benefits of I2P imo is that it's packet-switched so you can build UDP apps on it, and that it punches holes through firewalls like a boss just like bittorrent.
But I am not convinced its security is better than Tor.. well, perhaps there are some entities in this world that could beat Tor and not I2p, and the other way around?
As for making I2P faster, I don't think it needs this because most users are nodes so it always grows capacity automatically when new users show up.
IMO if you want to move packets from point A to point B without ANYONE being able to know, that's very possible to do and not even that expensive, but you do have to build it yourself.
Now running a non-malicious monero node actually does help out, since when the user requests decoys for their transaction you COULD give them false decoys to weaken their anonymity, so you are helping them quantifiably. Perhaps give it an i2p and tor address.
