Comparison between Tor and i2p?

...

If you've just connected to it, sure. Let it run for some time, and the speed picks up substantially.

false.i2p is a sorta semi-official I2P outproxy (available by default in i2pd), but it just shoves your traffic through Tor, so it goes (You) -> I2P -> Tor -> clearnet.

I2P has many CP, but Tor has more! I really wanna marry child brides!

But TLS works as expected right? I remember someone saying that outproxies had to perform MITM attacks to work because i2p wasn't designed to route clearnet connections in the first place. Did that change since then?

i2p works similarly to tor, except inside one i2p packet there are numerous packets from users on the network, and you are required to route for other users. when the final node in the route gets a request for a clearnet packet request, if it has the outproxy configured, it will run as an outproxy and pass the request / ack through.

Attached: rissup.webm (320x240, 1.93M)

Is this seriously how this is supposed to work, adding a ton of hostnames all the time?

I haven't had any issues.

Well, yes. Unlike Tor, which has always been a distributed proxy first and foremost, I2P focuses on the overlay network aspect, and regards outproxying as an afterthought. The other important part is that I2P is UDP-based, whereas you (usually) need TCP for clearnet.

There are tools to tunnel TCP. The outproxy will then just pass it to Tor or let it go out directly, depending on configuration.

Not hostnames. And you don't need to restart for it to take effect either. That defeats the purpose of i2p.

i2p = java shit = shit
Tor = compiled into machine code. = good