Dear list, Paul suggested I share my reply to his question with the list. Here it is. Hello Paul, Thank you for reaching out — and thank you for your work on onion routing. I genuinely mean that. Without what you and your colleagues built, Selene wouldn't exist. You asked what makes Selene different from the other messaging tools that use onion addresses. I think there are a few things that make it stand out. It has native OBFS4 and WebTunnel bridge support with a built-in manager, so if Tor is blocked, Selene can still connect without requiring the user to configure system-wide bridges. You can also modify the listening ports so it doesn't conflict with other Tor instances running on the same machine. And you can request a new Tor circuit or generate a new onion address(http/chat), which gives users control over their privacy and connectivity. On top of Tor's transport, Selene adds its own application-layer encryption — RSA for messages and AES-256 for files. So even if someone were to compromise the Tor hidden service connection, the data itself remains encrypted with Selene's own keys. Furthermore @techmetx11 suggested on the list that I should consider moving to X25519 for key exchange instead of RSA. I'm genuinely open to that and will likely explore adding it as an option alongside RSA. Selene gives you two ways to connect. You can share .contact files with people you already know for private, contact-based chat. Or you can connect anonymously by sharing an onion address directly, without exchanging contact details — which is useful for ephemeral or one-off conversations where you don't want to establish a persistent contact relationship. I appreciate you taking the time to ask. With respect, Alamahant