How about “exposed" onion services? It’s less ambiguous than “open”, is an antonym to “hidden”, is short and nice to say, and suitably indicates a lack of protection for the onion service.

This is why you should never geeks - including me - decide branding issues. :-)

I don’t accept the label “geek”. Moreover, I am participating in this discussion to choose the name that I will be calling it for the next many months, and thus I have a stake in it.

"Exposed" is a case in point; it's a negative concept. People die of exposure. You might be naked and exposed. The word "expose" generally is associated with connotations where "exposure" is a bad thing.

Sorry Aaron, but the very example you cite is about "indicating a lack of protection”.

It is exactly this cautionary message to the operator that we are trying to obtain, and it apparently is successful. I would prefer a slightly more positive message, but I don’t see how to have both.

All qualitative labels will have this problem: Free, Libre, Open, Closed, Hidden, Public, Private ... all of these describe an abstract intent, rather than a technology. Such qualitative label-names are inevitably presumptuous of {some} implementer's intent.

I am definitely arguing to convey intent rather than to convey technical implementation. We had reached an equilibrium with “single onion services” that nickm upset because it didn’t properly convey intent.

David says that this is "going to be part of the ABI" - in which case I am amazed that we're having this discussion because config file contents are free to be disjoint from branding, and can be as insane as you like.

I see this is a discussion to figure out how we describe it as we develop it. If Tor wants to rebrand later, fine.

Aaron