[tor-project] Onion sites vs onion services vs hidden services

Nathan Freitas nathan at freitas.net
Wed May 4 15:54:03 UTC 2016

On Wed, May 4, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Paul Syverson wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 07:36:23AM +0000, Yawning Angel wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 May 2016 01:30:13 +0000
> > Alison Macrina <alison at libraryfreedomproject.org> wrote:
> > > So, I want to propose that we choose onion sites or onion services
> > > once and for all (I'm in favor of the former because most users have
> > > no idea what is meant by "services"; it sounds too vague). Then,
> > > whenever we see somewhere on torproject.org or any of our
> > > documentation or whatever that still reads hidden services or onion
> > > services, that we kill it with fire.
> > 
> > Disagree, because this further reinforces the idea that the internet is
> > centered around port 80/443, and is nonsensical given some of our
> > prominent use cases ("Ricochet is based around Tor onion services" vs
> > "Ricochet is based around Tor onion sites".  One of these statements is
> > correct, and one is not).
> To further Yawning's point and provide an example of using both terms:
> Ricochet is an onion service in which each Ricochet client
> creates a local onionsite that others connect to.

Actually, for me, the user of the word "service" is something that is a
machine-readable endpoint, an API or protocol, while "site" is a meant
to have some human-facing aspect that is able to be browsed or read
through a web browser or something of that nature.

I would say that Ricochet is only an onionservice, while something like
SecureDrop or Globaleaks would be an onionsite that offers onionservices
as part of the application.


More information about the tor-project mailing list