Hacker News Reader

Comment by LinuxBender | Hacker News Reader

It does exist. It's not a new protocol, you can use (just about) anything that supports tcp. The domain names all end in ".onion"

View on HN

For such purposes, Tor would be pretty inefficient. I suppose one could say that the inefficiency is a "feature" that makes the system self-limiting, curbing porn addiction. LOL

It certainly rules out streaming large videos. For pictures and small videos it should be sufficient.

The more challenging issue I see is getting a large community of people to switch from their existing happy-clicky (low-friction, no pun intended) website to something that requires installing Tor.

IIUC Firefox is working towards integrating tor into the core browser, at which point it will be point and click with .onion domains.

It'll be like 1996 all over again, only without the added titillation of listening to the screams and shrieks of a 28.8-baud modem in heat.

Instead of watching hour-long videos in 1080p, you get to watch a single JPEG download and render line-by-line until the connection drops right at the exciting part.

Tor hidden servers can push around 40mb/s with a tiny bit of tweaking. They were working on support for the concept of sharding, but you could do that yourself by having multiple tor nodes. Actually, it's been a while since I toyed around with it. By now it's probably faster.

it must be called xxx

You could cycle through names until you get one with xxx in it. :-)

There are tools to do that automatically. A prefix of "xxx" or "xxxxxx" can be found almost instantaneously; "xxxxxxxxx" should be doable given an hour or two.

https://github.com/lachesis/scallion

Reply on news.ycombinator.com