Instead of only bashing tor, why not discuss the alternatives?

[zen@freedbms.net (Zenaan Harkness)]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 08:58:47AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
> Tor, likewise, should not be less secure than it could be. Â Multiple
> transfer hops (as opposed to the current one-hop),decoy (a given
> packet 'explodes' into multiple packets, maybe only one is 'real')
> transfers,  padded with adjustable filler traffic, etc, should have
> been added by now. Â Why the delay?

AIUI, there current stated reason is "we do those things we get funding
for, and we've never been able to get funding for these particular
things" - although the cynic in me can't help think that they are
failing to properly apply the funding they get/ failing to make the
'proper' (perhaps semi-devious) funding applications.

Of course the basic problems are:
1) GPAs/ USA monitors the whole world's internet
2) the CIA/USA/NSA is the only one currently funding Tor to any decent
extent.

We got a long way to go..