On 2/23/16 4:14 AM, Paul Syverson wrote:
So every name's a problem. I think "Hidden Service" was a bad name in hindsight in that it focused only on the location hiding and not on the provided authentication, and worse, it facilitated stupid pundits coining the misleading "Dark Web". That's why I like names like "Single-Onion Service" and "Double-Onion Service" that describe the technology not what it provides (which can also become a misnomer if other features of the service become prominent in use).
+1
If you want to underscore in the name specifically the not-hidden property, then I suggest the best would be 'Rendezvous Located-Onion Service'. And Single Onion Service, would be 'Located-Onion Service'.
-1
I think that anybody who configure a Tor for feature that Tor Project may consider risky from the Anonymity perspect, the right approach is to look forward what i wrote in this ticket https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/17019 .
"For both NON-ANONYMOUS Tor Hidden Service use-cases (Server and Client), we can build them in the standard version of Tor by adding a command line like:
--yes-i-know-that-i-m-going-to-use-non-anonymous-tor-hidden-services-client (tor2web mode) --yes-i-know-that-i-m-going-to-use-non-anonymous-tor-hidden-services-server (encrypted services)"
That way: - The feature could be described as Paul is suggesting, by it's technical functionality - The end-user configuring will be prevented from making mistakes that may jeopardize it's anonymity
Fabio