jeff

> > do you mean lokinet? @majestrate > > Afaik it was rebranded from loki? O.o no it remains lokinet

> there are surely some things critisisable about Lokinet/Oxen that Tor hasn't. what are these things specifically?

> Oh I see you're working on it. I'm quiet then. The Session community was not nice at all when seeing criticism. when others criticize your favorite project it's easy...

> I do not plan to add any more anonymous networks to InviZible, as this can significantly complicate InviZible and its configuration. this is perfectly reasonable. I can see it...

> > don't have much to offer other than an IP tunnel that onion routes stuff like tor does for tcp streams but with IP packets, which is still pretty...

i didn't know winget did package management yet, last i checked it was just an exe downloader with no ability to manage (remove, depend, upgrade, migrate, etc) packages.

this would mark this traffic as distinct, it is unwise to do so imo. better to have it generate the shared secret with that parameter as an optional additional salt.

you dont need to modify yggdrasil to have such functionality. the easier and more manageable way is with an os firewall with a managed ip whitelist.

> If you were right, then there wouldn't be so many different VPN implementations. :) the differences are from the underlying transport not the interface it exposes. the exposed interface...

you can have the same net effect here without adding unneeded new message types by having the kdf used by each side require an optional out of band shared secret....