Shoalsteed
commented
11 months ago It's not always productive to compare Tor and I2P directly, because they are intended to accomplish things in somewhat different ways.
I2P is a peer-to-peer network where every participant has exactly the same "status" within the network, more-or-less. This is in contrast to Tor which has a clear separation of "Clients" "Routers" and "Exits" with sub-categories within. In I2P, everyone is a "Client" and a "Router" and no one is an "Exit." The I2P network is not designed to exit traffic. Instead it is designed to be used as an internal, internet-like overlay network.
Almost any application can run over the I2P network with enough effort. Things that involve knocking a TCP service to open a UDP service are possible on I2P in ways that are not immediately possible on Tor.
On the other hand, Tor was designed with egress in mind, Exit nodes are official services, and Tor has defences designed around traffic confirmation by the exit node. The Tor Browser Bundle has made Tor much easier to use, and it has benefitted from focused development, code review, and user facing design. This makes Tor better for accessing a clearnet website than using I2P's outproxy function.
I2P network use-cases are much broader than Tor's. Instead, the project ships a "Router Console" along with accompanying applications such as Bittorrent and email. These applications are pre-configured for I2P network use, and they are simpler by design than browsing in general so they tend to be very thoroughly configured. The result is that I2P provides a broader use case end-user console UX that can seem confusing due to presenting the complexity of options.
Remove entirely - https://geti2p.net/en/comparison/other-networks. Combine Tor and Freenet on one page. Update Tor page to accurately describe if we are comparing to Tor Browser or network.