Privacy

2480 readers

494 users here now

Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

danielintempesta@programming.dev

Lemmy on i2p? (eviltoast.org)

submitted 1 month ago by johntash@eviltoast.org to c/privacy@programming.dev

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Does anyone know if there are any lemmy instances hosted on i2p or tor?

If not, does it make sense to host one that would potentially be more privacy friendly? I'm also wondering if it should be it's own "fediverse" completely inside of i2p (and/or tor) and not have access to the clearnet?

top 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it will work without code changes.

From my understanding, Lemmy federation is very heavily domain/URL dependent and already pretty finicky.

[–] johntash@eviltoast.org 4 points 1 month ago

That's a good point, I guess if it works then federating would end up being fairly whitelist-only with everyone having to add various instances to their own address book.

[–] Scoopta@programming.dev 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm not sure this works with Lemmy's current architecture unless it's fully isolated from the clearnet. When you visit a lemmy instance your browser directly loads URLs from other instances, you can easily see this with an extension like IPvFoo. Even if you hosted an instance on the darknet if it was federated with even 1 clearnet instance it would cease being anonymous.

[–] johntash@eviltoast.org 1 points 1 month ago

That does pretty much rule out i2p if you want any federation with clearnet.

Maybe federating only inside of i2p is fine though? It'd require more than one instance, but having a completely isolated fediverse could be a good thing.

I guess I would worry what sort of people would be attracted to it.