Hi all, Phoebe here.
I’m going to write an article about DeWeb & Tor.
Are there any subjects you’d like to see discussed ?
Let me know!
4 Likes
I would say that a comparison explanation and summary table with TOR, IPFS, FreeNet, Arweave, Dfinity ICP and plain old AWS showing the advantages/disvantages of DeWeb and its general positioning would be nice and answer many community questions.
If it is too heavy, then focus on TOR vs DeWeb which is the most straightforward comparison.
2 Likes
I feel like we should be quite transparent about the advantages AND shortcomings related to making something truly decentralized. It is part of the trade-off and explains our unique positioning.
1 Like
Hey thanks for your response.
This could be an interesting perspective.
I do have a couple concerns:
-
It might not really be an a “article” with added value and a real demonstration, but a market analysis.
-
Adopting this comparative approach will place us in opposition to the underlined solutions, where in reality there might be synergies with the mentionned tech.
-
Establishing a “general positioning” would be nice for the community, but I don’t believe it would drive adoption from a B2B perspective (which is what Mainnet launch is geared towards, and the reason why this article should exist).
Here are my follow-up proposition:
-
We clearly need a comparative graph, maybe even in a published format, but that should come at the “Open DeWeb for All” stage where our efforts will be B2C oriented.
-
In this article instead of adopting a comparative approach, we could build on the idea that TOR is a good and well known tool, but there are short comings, most notably in the front-end hosting department.
Which is currently our specific use case (as of right now). The objective will be for people to A) understand web2 and web3 problems and B) how the DeWeb anwsers this specific issue. C) Position Massa’s DeWeb in a larger ecosystem of impact & disruptive tech that deal with free speach, decentraliztion & acces to information.
- I believe in establishing a “specific position” rather than a “general position”. The idea behind this is the same for any thesis: if you’re “problématique” is too large, you’re never really get to the heart of the subject and your reader won’t really understand your ideas.
If you have a well defined perspective, clear position & objective than whatever u say will be helpful for your demonstration.
wdyt of these proposals ?
1 Like
I agree with your feedback. The detailed comparison table with other systems is necessary to show the ups and downs but might fit better in a deck, docs or separate article.
I also agree that basing the deweb discourse on “we are like tor hidden services but faster and more resilient” does speak for itself and simplifies the comparison
2 Likes
Thanks u for the inputs, here is a general overview of the article structure and conclusion:
Target: Public Utility Applications that host on TOR, TOR users that want to test a new solution, Decentralization & privacy enthusiasts
Objective: Push DeWeb as a faster and more resilient alternative to TOR
Tone: Factual, down to earth, neutral
Structure:
Intro
→ real world examples of arbitrary abuse of power, censorship and acces to information restriction
→ TOR & DeWeb definition
→ Problem: How does the DeWeb contribute to insuring a free & censor ship resistant internet ?
Plan
A) DeWeb & TOR, two privacy first solutions
B) two solutions with notable key differences
C) Synergies and specific use cases for each tool
Conclusion
As we’ve demonstrated, DeWeb and The Onion Router are both privacy first solutions. The two are essential tools in todays digital landscape where information restriction & censorship à omnipresent.
These two tools share similarities like there decentralized infrastructure & privacy first access methods which makes them very important tools to both guarantee application resilience and user protection.
But despite these shared specificities where TOR is built on an strong, but dated technology, the DeWeb stands out by it’s use of the blockchain. Indeed, under the hood, DeWeb powered by Massa’s decentralized ledger insures a higher degree of resilience, faster load times and guaranteed uptime. This makes the DeWeb a particularly interesting solution for those who are sensible to blockchain technologies and want to build resilient applications or migrate their current infrastructure on the DeWeb.
2 Likes
I wouldn’t call TOR dated tech, but highlight the differences.
TOR hidden services are hosted on centralized servers whose IP address is simply hidden, but they still rely on their operators running and maintaining the servers. If the server hosting the website stops or gets hacked, the hidden service is made unavailable. Hidden services are also sensitive to Denial of Service attacks which slows them down. Massa Deweb websites are fully cloned and stored on more than 1300 computers around the world. Once a website is deployed, it runs by itself on all Massa nodes without relying on any central infrastructure. The creators of the website do not need to maintain any infrastructure. This makes websites hosted on Massa always available, fast, resilient, durable and secure.
2 Likes
I guessed dated wasn’t the right term, but the longer a tech is out the more exploits exists, I was thinking of exit node listening most notably which TOR can’t really do anything about:Tor Exit Nodes Mapped and Located | HackerTarget.com
heyy yall here is a quick update on the article, before it gets sent into the publishing stage… i wanted something easy to read and comprehensible, it’s definitely more synthetic than what i originally was planning => let me know what you think of this choice (the detailed version can be brought back up if needed)
Title: DeWeb: A Faster, Resilient Solution for Decentralized Hosting
Intro
In a world where digital access is shaped by powerful gatekeepers, our information networks face growing threats from censorship, infrastructure fragility, and centralization. The balance of our online freedoms and privacy often depends on corporate policies or government regulations, limiting our control over what we can see, read, or discuss.
Recent cases highlight this fragility. In Parler v. Amazon Web Services, a platform was blocked due to content moderation policies, while Yaman Akdeniz v. Turkey showcased government-driven restrictions on public information access. In Morevano v. Ministry of Defense, internet shutdowns affected entire populations, revealing the risk posed when control over information rests with a few centralized entities.
In response, decentralized technologies are emerging to protect access to information and digital privacy. Among the oldest of these is the Tor Network (The Onion Router), an open-source tool designed to facilitate anonymous online communication by routing data through volunteer servers. Tor’s layered encryption renders user traffic untraceable, shielding it from surveillance and censorship.
Enter DeWeb, a decentralized hosting solution powered by Massa’s blockchain that aims to create an internet infrastructure free from censorship and central points of failure. By enabling on-chain hosting of web pages and applications, DeWeb offers resilience, privacy, and protection against data breaches, providing a new approach to an open, censorship-resistant web. In this article, we’ll examine how DeWeb and Tor work to protect digital freedom and explore the unique advantages of each solution.
DeWeb & TOR: Privacy-First Solutions
Both Tor and DeWeb prioritize user privacy, freedom from censorship, and protection from surveillance—yet they accomplish this through different methods.
Tor uses “onion routing” to anonymize user activity by wrapping data in multiple layers of encryption as it travels through a network of volunteer-operated nodes. Each node decrypts one layer, hiding the origin and destination of the data to prevent tracking by internet service providers, governments, and other entities. Tor’s use of “bridges” (unlisted entry points) helps users bypass censorship, making it a popular tool for activists, journalists, and individuals in heavily restricted regions.
DeWeb, on the other hand, leverages the Massa blockchain to create a censorship-resistant, privacy-first web experience. Users access websites directly from the blockchain, bypassing centralized servers. With an integrated content management application, DeWeb allows users to access decentralized sites within its ecosystem without needing a Virtual Private Server (VPS) or complex setup. Instead, user data and content are stored across nodes on the blockchain, creating a decentralized infrastructure ideal for applications requiring high uptime and resilience.
Key Differences Between TOR & DeWeb
While Tor and DeWeb share similar goals, there are significant differences in how they operate:
1. Purpose and Technology
- Tor is a privacy-focused browsing tool that anonymizes users’ online activities. Its “onion routing” allows users to navigate the internet without revealing their IP address or browsing data.
- DeWeb, built on the Massa blockchain, goes beyond browsing by supporting direct on-chain hosting of websites and applications. DeWeb essentially creates a new web infrastructure where content is stored and accessed through blockchain nodes, eliminating the need for traditional web servers.
2. User Experience and Speed
- Tor provides secure browsing but can be slower due to its multi-layered encryption. Users connect to .onion sites hosted independently, which often require a VPS for hosting, exposing the sites to potential attacks like DNS hijacking.
- DeWeb, meanwhile, provides a direct and faster browsing experience, as data is retrieved directly from blockchain nodes. Without intermediary servers, DeWeb can load pages more quickly, offering seamless access to decentralized web content without relying on HTTPS protocols.
3. Infrastructure Resilience
- Tor depends on a network of volunteer nodes, but the infrastructure behind these nodes often relies on centralized providers like OVH, making it vulnerable to censorship risks.
- DeWeb benefits from Massa’s decentralized structure, where content is mirrored across all nodes on the blockchain. If one access point is compromised, other nodes maintain availability, making DeWeb a more resilient solution for applications in censorship-prone environments.
4. Security
- Tor’s architecture makes it a strong choice for anonymous browsing, but applications hosted on Tor often require additional configurations and servers, leaving them open to attacks on the front end and risks related to API and key management.
- DeWeb avoids these security risks by hosting applications directly on-chain, where data remains encrypted and protected by the blockchain, minimizing vulnerabilities from third-party services.
Why Massa Blockchain?
DeWeb’s choice of the Massa blockchain enables a truly decentralized and secure hosting environment, thanks to Massa’s unique architecture built around decentralization, freedom, and resilience. Massa’s multithreaded block structure distributes data processing across parallel threads, ensuring high availability and eliminating single points of failure. The use of a block DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph) structure further enhances data integrity and reliability, allowing seamless, uninterrupted access to decentralized content. Additionally, Massa’s efficient ledger management conserves storage and energy, supporting sustainable and scalable growth in the decentralized web space—making it an ideal foundation for DeWeb’s mission of a censorship-resistant internet.
At the heart of both DeWeb and Massa lies a commitment to empowering users and promoting an open internet. They prioritize values such as transparency, privacy, and user autonomy, recognizing that individuals should have control over their digital experiences without interference from centralized authorities. By emphasizing these principles, DeWeb and Massa foster a community-driven ecosystem where users can freely access information, share ideas, and innovate without fear of censorship or surveillance. This alignment enhances user trust and contributes to a more equitable digital landscape.
Conclusion
Tor and DeWeb represent critical tools in the fight for a free and open internet. While Tor’s onion routing system is invaluable for anonymizing online activities, DeWeb’s blockchain-based infrastructure provides a distinct solution for decentralized hosting and application resilience. Each technology has unique advantages:
- Tor remains a powerful solution for anonymous browsing and is a lifeline for activists and journalists in repressive regions.
- DeWeb, with its blockchain-driven, local-first approach, complements Tor by offering a resilient infrastructure for hosting decentralized applications that require high reliability and resistance to censorship.
In a digital world where information is increasingly restricted, technologies like Tor and DeWeb allow users and developers to regain control over content and privacy. The future of a truly open internet may well depend on these emerging technologies, offering everyone the tools to build a censorship-resistant, privacy-protected, and resilient digital landscape.
1 Like
Nice !
A couple corrections:
-
You should mostly compare us to TOR Hidden Services (AKA Onion Services), not to TOR used as an anonymizing proxy. See Tor Project | Set up Your Onion Service
-
TOR nodes do not rely on central infrastructure.
-
We should insist more on:
A TOR Hidden Service is just normal website hosted on a single centralized server, the IP of which is hidden. There are no immutability guarantees, the server can get DoS-ed which reduces its speed, if that single server is down, the website is down, it can be seized, there is no replication of the website data etc…
Massa’s decentralized websites are fully replicated on all the nodes of the network. No dependence on a single point of failure, no need for builders to maintain any infrastructure to keep their website up and always accessible everywhere.
- TOR hidden services do not support domain names
here @damir thanks for the feedback, i think the problem is that i don’t go into details. But here is an alternative comparison:
Key Differences Between TOR & DeWeb
While Tor and DeWeb share privacy-focused goals, key distinctions set them apart. Tor is primarily a browsing tool that anonymizes user activities and relies on a complex, layered system (The Onion Router) to ensure privacy during navigation. In contrast, DeWeb operates independently of traditional internet requirements by using the Massa blockchain for direct on-chain connectivity. Although an internet connection is still needed to access blockchain data, browsing occurs through a local interface, rather than over HTTPS, which maintains user privacy while accelerating page load times.
When a DeWeb client requests data, such as a website, it communicates directly with nodes on the blockchain responsible for data storage. Once located, the data is returned to the client and displayed for the user. This peer-to-peer approach eliminates the need for intermediary servers, providing a direct, faster connection to decentralized web content.
Moreover, DeWeb extends beyond just secure browsing. While Tor functions as a gateway to applications hosted independently on .onion sites, DeWeb integrates applications fully on-chain. Hosting an application on Tor requires a VPS and .onion configuration, leaving these independent applications exposed to various security threats, including frontend attacks, API and private key leaks, and DNS hijacking. Additionally, much of the the applications availible on TOR rely on centralized, service providers often like OVH in Europe, which increases the risk of censorship above all the aforementioned risks. In contrast, Massa’s decentralized websites are fully replicated on all the nodes of the network. No dependence on a single point of failure, no need for builders to maintain any infrastructure to keep their website up and always accessible everywhere.
DeWeb, therefore, offers a resilient solution for applications facing censorship. It does not compete directly with Tor but complements it by serving as a robust alternative for those requiring resistance to online censorship threats. DeWeb’s integration with the blockchain ensures data availability, as sites are hosted across all nodes on the Massa chain. If an access point (server or node) disappears, alternative nodes automatically step in to maintain the website’s accessibility, securing data availability.
1 Like
Great article!!
I would also consider adding a few info:
- Maybe going deeper into how DeWeb works. Or just providing links to technical details about Massa’s tech.
- Including examples or case studies of DeWeb in action would strengthen the article. Like demonstrating how DeWeb can be use to circumvent censorship or improve resilience in specific situations.
- Information about the developer community, partnerships, or ecosystem support for DeWeb and Massa would help gauge the project’s maturity and potential for growth.
Some feedbacks:
navigation
navigation is French => browsing
In contrast, DeWeb operates independently of traditional internet requirements by using the Massa blockchain for direct on-chain connectivity
Not sure what this means.
browsing occurs through a local interface, rather than over HTTPS
This is factually incorrect. Your computer talks to a node through HTTP(S).
Hosting an application on Tor requires a VPS
Not really, it can be your computer at home.
More generally, the concept is quite simple to understand without being very technical:
- TOR Hidden Service: you need to host the website on a single computer that you operate or rent, the IP of that computer is hidden to visitors. If the computer is turned off or hacked, it has a direct impact on the website and its users. No domain names available.
- Massa decentralized web: the website and its domain name are fully replicated on many computers around the world and can be made immutable. It is always available and there is no single point of failure. No need to run and maintain any infrastructure when you deploy a website.
But somehow I feel like the article wiggles around that through pieces of the information spread here and there and could gain in clarity if this is stated clearly in a self-contained way (no need to talk about HTTPs or other distractions).
hey damir, i guess you’re right i lost track of the main objective of the article, i’ll write something up
Heyy following up i wrote up a quick alternative to the original article, straight and to the point, let me know
title: DeWeb: A Faster, Resilient Solution for Decentralized Hosting
Intro
Today’s internet freedoms are at growing risk. Central hosting providers can control your data—and restrict access to it instantly. Governments also play an increasing role in online content censorship for political, social, and religious reasons.
For a long time, TOR and onion services were the best options for hosting censorship-resistant applications. Many people worldwide have used .onion services to host content and guarantee access to critical resources, even in regions affected by internet censorship.
However, onion services have a fundamental problem that’s often overlooked: they rely on centralized hosting solutions. This means that your onion site is either hosted locally or on a VPS, creating a single point of failure. This setup exposes onion sites to potential downtime, DDoS attacks, and data breaches. TOR users also face challenges, as they have no guarantee that onion sites are legitimate, making the browsing experience both stressful and inaccessible for many.
In this article, we’ll look at how DeWeb solves these issues by offering a fully decentralized, replicated, on-chain web solution.
How DeWeb Solves the Centralization Problem
As mentioned, the Decentralized Web, powered by MassaLabs, presents a faster, more reliable alternative to onion services by eliminating the need for centralized servers. Here’s how it works:
Unlike onion services, DeWeb websites are not stored on a single server. Instead, all websites uploaded to the Massa blockchain are fully replicated across every node in the network, ensuring 100% uptime. If an onion service’s central server is compromised, the entire operation goes down and must be manually restarted. With DeWeb, this risk is eliminated. Data replication across the blockchain removes any central points of failure, providing strong resilience against typical web threats like DDoS.
{user experience figure}
DeWeb also offers an improved user experience with domain names. On TOR, users rely on lists of .onion addresses, whereas DeWeb provides a Massa Name Service (MNS), which enables users to mint unique domain names for fast, secure access to DeWeb sites. These Massa domains simplify navigation and enhance security by preventing DNS hijacking—what you ask for is what you get.
{immutability figure}
DeWeb’s optional immutability is also a standout feature. In today’s world, applications face frequent attacks due to poor security practices, resulting in serious losses. But here at Massalabs, we really believe that the users security should come first before anything else. That’s why we built the DeWeb with immutability in mind.
Immutability of the DeWeb hosted websites, due to them being stored in smart contracts, means that a malicious actor cannot modify the website. This is a massive improvement when we’re comparing the DeWeb to onion services.
Indeed, if a malicious actor, or abusive authority, gains access to the central server where your application is hosted, they can do anything they want with your website. On top of siphoning your data for example, they can highjack your frontend in order to cary out malicious tasks like personal information theft.
DeWeb’s immutability by design and the absence of central servers guarantee that this will never happen to you or to the users visiting your website. This fully unlocks the possibility to host fully decentralized applications, that do not depend on anyone to run. In simpler words, once they’re “on-chain” they live on chain.
Conclusion
Both TOR and DeWeb are essential for maintaining privacy, fighting censorship, and supporting global access to information. But DeWeb stands out as a safer, faster, and more reliable alternative to onion services. Built on the Massa blockchain, DeWeb ensures high availability, security, and resilience without relying on central servers—an innovative approach to decentralized hosting at a time when internet freedom is under threat.
For more information, you can follow MassaLabs or check out DeWeb’s landing page.
yess these are interesting suggestions, I’ll look into them & see how to make the article more complete!
Better!
Some feedback:
TOR and onion services
(feels like two independent things)
Onion Services on TOR
VPS
A VPS is a Virtual Private Server, which is one of the types of hosting available by cloud providers in which a single computer is shared to simulate multiple virtual computers. Many TOR nodes actually use bare metal hosting / dedicated server cloud or other forms of managed hosting that are not VPS.
TL;DR: Let’s avoid acronyms that not everyone knows, especially when used incorrectly 
This setup exposes onion sites to potential downtime, DDoS attacks, and data breaches
DDoS => Denial Of Service
also add that the website can be compromised just by hacking this one server.
TOR users also face challenges, as they have no guarantee that onion sites are legitimate
We have the same issue for now
Massa Name Service (MNS),
Don’t forget to say that the domain service is also on-chain and fully replicated, immutable
Also let’s insist a bit more on the fact that builders can deploy on the deweb and then they don’t need to run or maintain any infrastructure; Actually their presence is not required to keep their website running
All are interested feedback. But keep in mind the objective of this article (vs. maybe another one to highlight DeWeb specificities & ecosystem)
I’m maybe wrong but for me the objective of this article is to grab attention of Onion users and offer them an alternative.
My bad. The objective we agreed on was: “Push DeWeb as a faster and more resilient alternative to TOR”
I believe your lastest version achieve this objective. It’s great. I’m wondering if using “Alice and Bob” exemple rather than sentence to explain the key features wouldn’t be better. Just an idea
1 Like