Use torrents over I2P for anonymity

[komachi]

I2P has bittorrent support, and it works very well (but slow). So suggestion is to use it. There should be an option to use only I2P, only clearnet, or both.

More info:
https://geti2p.net/en/
https://geti2p.net/en/docs/applications/bittorrent

[aaannndddyyy]

+1

[gaapt]

+1

[TheNain38]

+1

[str4d]

Relevant thread: http://zzz.i2p/topics/1613-azi2phelper-vuze-plugin (requires I2P to view). Vuze has implemented both I2P-only and clearnet+I2P modes for regular torrenting, and their code may help provide insight about how to add I2P support to ZeroNet.

Disclaimer: I'm an I2P developer (and happy to answer questions!)

[str4d]

Some more points:

• I2P has a well-used in-net torrent DHT. See the BitTorrent docs page (also linked above) for details (there are some slight differences from the clearnet DHT protocol to support I2P addresses).
• AFAIR Vuze's azi2phelper plugin manages the I2P and clearnet DHTs separately.
• I2P supports UDP, if it helps (via SAMv3 API).

[aaannndddyyy]

any news on this?

[HelloZeroNet]

Buit-in Tor (with hidden services) just landed 1 week ago, the core modifications was made in mind of future i2p/ipv6 support. I was looking for python libraries for i2p, but only found some outdated ones (updated 12 years or 3 years ago).

Need more research to see if i2p support many (per site so 100+) services from same host and have to find out the cryptography of i2p address to be able to create proof-of-ownership signature to avoid some network attacks.
The other main problem is to make it any usefull we have to pack it with ZeroNet, i'm not sure if its possible with java applications.

[aaannndddyyy]

Thank you for your quick response.

Maybe your first set of issues is something @str4d can help with.

Re bundling i2p: i think that making the i2p transport optional and then require the user who wants to use it, to install i2p himself is ok. I don't think everything should be bundled.

[HelloZeroNet]

The problem with optional installation: I2p does not allow socket connections outside the network, so to be able to connect to a site using i2p it must have at least one peer with i2p address which is unlikely if they have to start/configure by hand.

[str4d]

@HelloZeroNet if you were using Twisted I'd point you at txi2p, but instead I'll point at the more general Python library. Both use the SAM API, which is supported by all I2P implementations.

Re: bundling, I agree bundling Java would be tricky, because it would require the JVM. Bundling Python in Java is easier because of things like Jython - I don't know if there is maybe some reverse equivalent? Otherwise you could look at the C++ I2P routers being developed (i2pd and kovri), which I assume could be bundled the same way you are bundling Tor. I would certainly recommend at least having a UI option to use an external I2P router, even if it is not the default; many I2P users run a router 24/7 on a VM and run their transient apps through it remotely. This would be the same setup as other I2P-supporting apps like Vuze or Bote.

[str4d]

Need more research to see if i2p support many (per site so 100+) services from same host

I need some more clarification on this. Are you wanting one Destination (I2P equivalent of Tor Onion Service) per site, or multiple listening sockets at different ports on the same Destination? The former is possible (though YMMV regarding how many hundreds you can run at once :P ); the latter will be possible soon via the above Python libraries (we only just exposed via the SAM API our support for multiple ports).

and have to find out the cryptography of i2p address to be able to create proof-of-ownership signature to avoid some network attacks.

The binary format of the B64 private key that SAM returns to you is documented here; you could instantiate the private signing key yourself and use it to sign anything you wanted. That may be something that gets added to the Python libraries in future if enough people require it.

[HelloZeroNet]

@str4d Thanks for the responses. As for the "many (per site so 100+) services from same host":

In full Tor mode we create a new .onion address for every site you seeding to improve privacy by make it harder to find out what other sites you using. So if someone has 100 sites in his/her client then on the startup we need to create 100 i2p address on startup.

[aaannndddyyy]

that will not scale in i2p.
because i2p router must build those tunnels and rebuild them as they
change every few minutes for increased privacy.
Maybe sorting them into different pools could be a viable solution?
though this would require much work. Who decides which pool a site would
be in? would have to be the user and would require one additional step
for him before seeing the site. So not really good.

OTOH, vuze does not create a different destination for each torrent
either.
But I perfectly understand the point of uncorrelating the sites.