[Karrot_Kream]

> I'm not sure what you mean by that. I2P is almost entirely focused around hidden services, and those services more or less work the same way for the end user with the added bonus that there's a loose sort of "DNS" that creates human readable URLs for services. How does Tor's services have more of a network effect than those on I2P?

Tor's tech doesn't create the network effect, it's just that the network effect exists for various reasons. Facebook is on Tor, for example, but it's not on I2P. This notoriety means a beginner to the private net will be more likely to reach for Tor than I2P.

> That doesn't mean people shouldn't be aware of it or consider it as an alternative for their own use.

To some extent I do think the Tor project has spent more resources on trying to make Tor usable for folks who aren't just power users, but I2P has also had a fraction of the resourcing that Tor has. It's a sort of "worse is better" here. It might also be the case that the pool of users interested in the anonymous net is small enough that there's just not enough room for a lot of competitors. I'm not sure and the nature of these networks make it hard to draw any ideas about their size/shape.

> I think people here are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying to never use Tor under any circumstance. I'm telling people to think before they use a tool with known flaws and an interesting origin story. There's nothing unreasonable about this.

This is mostly tone I think. I agree with what you're saying. I also think Tor, for better or for worse, has a lot of somewhat rabid fans. But yeah if I wanted to run a net service that I only wanted accessed anonymously, I'd probably use I2P.