The readme advertises the project as a black market, as does the name.
EDIT: jlgreco, I can't reply to you, so I'll respond here.
> So the purpose isn't the problem, just the name? If Tor were instead named "Thing-to-subvert-the-state-omatic", would you then oppose efforts to popularize it?
The Silk Road was a black market, so 2.0 would need to be pretty explicit that it's NOT a black market to overcome that-- but it's not. It seems pretty intent on carrying that legacy.
I wouldn't call Tor the "Thing-to-subvert-the-state-omatic"; I'd call it the "Thing-to-avoid-surveillance-omatic." This, in keeping with the history of the Silk Road, I'd call the "Thing-to-sell-drugs-omatic."
So to be clear, do you oppose this because of what it facilitates, or do you oppose it because of what the author indents it to facilitate?
If the author gave it all of the same properties and abilities, claimed that he intended it to share knitting patterns, named it "Yarn Road", and never mentioned a single thing about drugs, would it bother you?
To a degree, yes. I'm in favor of virtual markets and currencies, but because they can increase the opportunities for lawful commerce and reduce the role of rent-seekers-- not mask illegal activity. His messaging is certainly what I find most bothersome, but I still wouldn't throw my weight behind a system that offered no means of regulation. Likewise, I wouldn't agree with a system that includes total passive surveillability either. There needs to be a considered balance.
I certainly would not play out my policy disagreements through system design, which is how this strikes me. It's far too risky, and certain to get your software (and life) shut down in the long run.
So the purpose isn't the problem, just the name? If Tor were instead named "Thing-to-subvert-the-state-omatic", would you then oppose efforts to popularize it?
