From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Update about I2P publicity[edit]

The issues about limitations of TCP transport are by at large no longer relevant, as jrandom has updated the transport layer to utilize UDP, thus dramatically reducing the number of threads necessary to run. The article is short on information, especially technical information, and NPoV is not clearly there, however the rapid changes to I2P and its attendant software make it difficult to keep the article in sync, for which I would support that any statement about I2P would go accompanied by a version number of the program, so users could know at a glance if the recent versions of I2P suffer from a given problem, etc. --Eulen 15:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I2P publicity problem[edit]

There has been some controversy over fully describing the I2P client applications here.

The controversy comes from the purported inability of the I2P network to handle high traffic loads and/or network sizes of more than ~500 routers. The limitation in network size is due to technical limitations in the TCP/IP transport, which will be fixed within a few months. The problem with high traffic loads is that programs such as BitTorrent generate lots of traffic, and this can "overwhelm" low-traffic programs such as IRC, thus making it difficult for anonymous developers to converse with the I2P community and contribute. I assume the traffic problem will be eventually fixed as well.

Many people in the I2P community- including the lead developer jrandom -- reason that if I2P is widely advertised, then large numbers of people will join the network, and it will "crash". Thus the I2P community has asked everyone to refrain from mentioning I2P in Slashdot postings, popular news sites, etc. I2P developer smeghead asks that Wikipedia hold off on its "holy knowledge crusade." He states that I2P's goal is to stay "under the radar until jrandom revamps the transport."

It's also problematic to explain the I2P applications, since some of these are alpha releases that are made available as "ongoing experiments" that change rapidly and do not have great reliability. Many of the programs currently described on the I2P page are not even functional!

I'm an I2P developer, but I don't currently see this as a big problem. I did however want to explain this controversy, so you will have some idea of why there are battles in the edit/revert history.

Apparently, there was a chat session involving Wikipedia admin silsor, Shaun MacPherson, I2P developer smeghead, and others, in which a "compromise" was made, but this conversation has not been made public. Developer smeghead alleges that User:ShaunMacPherson ignored the compromise and went ahead and published lots of I2P information on Wikipedia. --Connelly 21:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Their fears should have no bearing on what we include. --Maru (talk) Contribs 17:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
That was two years ago, are they still afraid that it won't scale? From what is said above, it seems that the protocol was fixed. So does the developers have asked the user community not to mention the software in high publicity website reflect the current state?-- (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does. See ZZZ's I2P Publicity Blog Post. The developers are currently only interested in attracting more developers or software/crypto-savvy beta testers. While the protocol fixes mentioned have been implemented, one developer believes that with the current version, 0.6.2, the network will not scale well past several thousand nodes. covracer (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Read ZZZ's I2P Publicity Blog Post again. It was updated in November of 2009. There is now no reason to fear the amount of Traffic a Wikipedia article will generate - the system survived being slashdotted. Guy Macon (talk) 08:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I think there was a general sentiment that "the first rule of I2P is you never talk about I2P", for the sake of increased security of the beta-state network, through obscurity (presumably, big brother in oppressive countries will do less to attack it if less people use it or know about it). So maybe we should clarify the happenings of this in the article.
"Before 2009, there was a fear that I2P does not have the capacity to provide high bandwidth for many users, where high bandwidth applications could have overwhelmed the I2P developers' ability to communicate and contribute. Since new protocol implementations, this situation has been fixed, and the network can now sustain high usage. Although it is still advisable to be cautious of bugs."
Something like that? --BurritoBazooka (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

VPN vs Overlay Network[edit]

I came here from Hamachi entry - noticed that someone made a change saying that 'i2p is too nat-aware vpn' (or something to that extent). Also looking at I2P article tags, it is filed under 'virtual private networking' genre. Strictly speaking I2P is not VPN, it is an overlay networking framework. The difference is subtle, yet it exists. "VPN" typically refers to the system that transparently integrates with a host operating system either via use of virtual adapters or bump-in-the-stack traffic interception. I2P can potentially be used for implementing VPN, but this is not something that it supports at the moment.

PS. Don't mean to be anal :) I come from industrial VPN background and I felt that the clarification was in order. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

I'm not familiar enough with these subtleties to do the edits myself, perhaps you could suggest what specific changes should be made to the article to clarify this point? Or even better, just go ahead and make the changes directly - be bold. :) Bryan 09:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Lacking Features[edit]

(moved from the reverted POV from the main article, to keep the inspiration for developers)

  • Shutdown option from the windows tray icon
  • Plugin that configures windows to only use .i2p webpages to the proxy
  • More peers (get on this everyone)
  • Sleep mode (so it donates more bandwidth while at I'm at work)

What is with all the "a la"s? -anonymous user

I am pretty sure you can get the only i2p address proxying with a firefox plugin now. Anyway, it's not i2p's mission to write plugins for all browsers. -- 08:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Version histroy[edit]

Do we want to keep some sort of version history in this article? Not noting every version of course, but the most important features that came with every new minor increment (next one would be 6.2). Adding dates to this would give a broad overview how this project moves along. -- 08:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


I believe the first paragraph should be cleaned of technobabble and give an overview of what I2P can do, because regular people may want to get at least some information before being turned away by a lot of words they don't understand. I have started this by adding the possible applications to the first paragraph. Maybe some stuff could be moved in the second paragraph and the anonymous / pseudonymous stuff could be worded better (however, there is no such thing as an anonymous network, this should be made clear). -- 08:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:I2plogo.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:I2plogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


I removed the link to anarcho-capitalism from "See Also", cause I can't figure out what, if anything, I2P has to do with it. Crypto-anarchism I can see (though it's a bit of a stretch), but anarcho-capitalism just seems random. Yourcelf (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge of .i2p[edit]

The .i2p stub can be added here, it's not really notable. Category:Pseudo-top-level domains can be preserved in a redirection from .i2p to I2P if desired. -- (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Done as proposed. -- (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC) same user as above, (s)he says

Information on Privacy[edit]

It may help to add a section on whether or not I2P is susceptable to traffic analysis or other outside monitoring. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC).

"Artistic License", which version?[edit]

Which version of the Artistic License is I2P licensed under? Version 1.0 is considered GPL-incompatible. Logictheo (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


I fail to see a reason for the notability tag, largely due to the fact that the project itself has been listed on the [many] articles for quite some time. In addition, the development is headed by a steady [team] which both has [goals] and a frequent [release schedule.] They release a new version approximately once every two or three months, and have continued that pattern for eight years. (That usually correlates with dedication.)

None of these things directly make the project notable, but I would be more easily convinced it weren't if the project had a frequently changing development team or little to no goals and/or progress. Lastly, I can't seem to find when it was originally added. The other three tags are fairly accurate, but I think this one should be removed.

wsoder (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, what makes a subject notable is not how old it is, nor how many pages link to it, nor how active development it; it is non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. At present, this article makes no indication at all that anyone not involved in developing either the subject or an application running on top of it has ever heard of it. As such, the article should be re-tagged until such point as this is shown in the article itself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Darknets are by definition secretive, so there are many articles which should be removed, as outside coverage of them is also limited. Those articles do add relevant information about a subject. Unless the entire field is non-notable (which is an opinion I'm sure some people have, though I would contest- and I don't use and kind of darknet) the articles will probably survive a notability tag. wsoder (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
"It's seekrit" is not an argument at all. If the subject is worth public note, publicly-available (or at least non-secret) reliable sources should have written about it. The existence of articles with equally poor sourcing elsewhere on the project is not an argument which supports this one. I've re-added the tag until such point as sources connoting notability can be found. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Adding any type of maintenance tag to an article usually includes either the intent to:
  • Notify editors that the article needs to be improved, or
  • Notify editors that the article needs to be deleted
The article is
  • Not going to be improved for a few years if at all (because it is, as you say "seekrit")
  • Not going to be deleted (which, if you would like to contest, I'm sure a quick AfD keep will clear up.)
All the same, in the interest of my public image, I won't start any more of a ruckus than I already have, other than to say that regardless of how innocent your misspelling of "secret" could have been intended to be, I found it difficult to not see it as an implication that I have a less than adequate intelligence to make the statements I've made on this talk page. In the future it may be best to leave jokes like that between people you know a bit better than you know me.
wsoder (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked for some information about I2P to see if there were any potential Reliable Sources available. I found the following candidates:

Though not perfect, they are most definitely better than the self-published sources currently available, and (in my opinion) constitute an amount of publishing necessary to prove notability. wsoder (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I2P is not pseudo-mathematical notation[edit]

This statement does not make sense:

The name I2P is derived from Invisible Internet Project, which, in pseudo-mathematical notation, is represented as I²P.

The 2 in I2P represents the 2 words starting with the letter "I" -- ("Invisible Internet"). It has nothing to do with exponents (as in I²P). Instead, I2P appears to be a numeronym just like i18n, W3C -- a word where a number is used to form an abbreviation.

I propose to change the above sentence to:

The name I2P appears to be a numeronym for Invisible Internet Project.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanCross (talkcontribs) 09:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Interresting idea, however I discover numeronym with you, so I can't confirm it's a good choice. --Dadu (talk) 10:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Invisible Internet Project -> IIP -> I×I×P = I²P


SSU is linked in the 'Technical Design' section - I'm used to this meaning Secure Semireliable UDP, an I2P term. This is pretty ambiguous and I'm not sure what it actually means in this context.


For a while now (many months, possibly more) there has been an alternate implementation of I2P, written in c++ called i2pd. There was also a now discontinued implementation called i2pcpp. At what point (if any) does this page get split into I2P(protocol), I2P(java software), I2Pd(c++ software) or is a section named alternate implementations enough? This page is a mishmash between the protocol and main implementation. (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia on I2P[edit]

I asked Jimmy Wales about creating an eepsite for Wikipedia on his talk page here.

This would be good for improving Wikipedia's resilience and allow people to anonymously read, and potentially/preferably also write, Wikipedia.

I'd be interested in what you think of this. Are there I2P mirrors of Wikipedia already? Do you have some concerns with this or could you provide help in implementing this?

For instance I guess improving anonymous write-access to Wikipedia also opens doors to some types of malicious edits and hence I'd suggest to have all edits made via I2P remain pending (or alike) even if the page is unprotected.

I also suggested a Tor hidden service and some other cybersecurity measures in the talk page entry.

--Fixuture (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Heavy on Primary Sources[edit]

I added the "relies too heavily on primary sources" template, because a majority of the references are directly from I2P or getI2P or github, etc. The information is not necessarily inaccurate, but a good article always has some extra perspectives and references ;-) Popcrate (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)