2.4 Comparative Latency Studies Across Darknets

Latency — the delay between sending and receiving data — is one of the most defining characteristics of any anonymity network.
Every darknet (Tor, I2P, Freenet, GNUnet, Yggdrasil, Nym) is designed for a different privacy model, and therefore, latency is not a “bug” but a design decision.

This chapter examines how architectural choices affect latency, bandwidth, routing delay, and real-world responsiveness.

A. Why Latency Matters in Darknets

Latency affects:

• user experience

• bandwidth usage

• reliability of connections

• feasibility of real-time applications

• anonymity strength

In anonymity systems, lower latency usually means weaker anonymity, while higher latency often correlates with stronger anonymity (especially against global adversaries).

This is known as the latency–anonymity tradeoff.

B. Low-Latency vs High-Latency Anonymous Networks

No darknet is optimized for all three: speed, security, and anonymity.

C. Latency Factors Across Darknets

Latency differences are caused by:

1. Routing architecture (onion, garlic, DHT, mixnet)

2. Number of hops in each request

3. Cryptographic operations required per message

4. Node selection and trust model

5. Network congestion

6. Geographical distribution of nodes

7. Design priorities (speed vs anonymity vs decentralization)

Let’s analyze each network individually.

D. Tor Latency Characteristics (Low-Latency Onion Routing)

Tor uses three-hop circuits with layered encryption.

Latency Profile

• Typical: 100–600 ms

• Higher under congestion

• Lower than I2P due to centralized directory authorities enabling optimized routing

Reasons for Moderate Latency

1. Relays are volunteer-based and unpredictable in performance.

2. Multiple encryption layers add processing time.

3. Circuits rotate every ~10 minutes, adding overhead.

4. Path length fixed at 3 hops, balancing anonymity and latency.

Real-World Findings

Empirical studies show Tor is suitable for:

• browsing

• messaging

• moderate-speed downloads

Not ideal for:

• VoIP

• video streaming

• high-throughput applications

Reference: Johnson et al., 2013; Dingledine et al., 2004.

E. I2P Latency Characteristics (Unidirectional Tunnels + Garlic Routing)

I2P routes data through separate inbound and outbound tunnels, increasing routing complexity.

Latency Profile

• Typically: 150 ms – several seconds

• Higher than Tor in many experiments

• Highly dependent on tunnel length and peer performance

Reasons for Higher Latency

1. Two independent tunnels increase overhead.

2. DHT-based router selection introduces randomness.

3. Garlic routing bundles multiple messages, adding processing time.

4. Internal peer-to-peer design prioritizes anonymity over speed.

I2P is optimized for:

• internal darknet websites

• P2P file sharing

• anonymous chat

Reference: Zantout & Haraty, 2011; I2P Technical Documentation.

F. Freenet Latency Characteristics (Distributed Data Store)

Freenet is not designed for interactive browsing.
It is effectively a distributed cache retrieval system with probabilistic routing.

Latency Profile

• Can range from several seconds to several minutes

• Depends heavily on:

  • network size

  • content popularity

  • data replication proximity

Reasons for High Latency

1. No direct path to content — routing is probabilistic.

2. Data is split into encrypted chunks across the network.

3. Requests may traverse many hops before completion.

Ideal for:

• censorship-resistant publishing

• long-term archival storage

Not designed for real-time use.

Reference: Clarke et al., 2000.

G. GNUnet Latency Characteristics (Peer Group Cryptography & Transport Plugins)

GNUnet’s routing protocols vary depending on which subsystem is used.

Latency Profile

• Medium to high latency

• Varies greatly with transport plugin (TCP, UDP, Bluetooth)

Reasons

1. Heavy cryptographic authentication between peer groups.

2. Flexible routing layers introduce additional overhead.

3. Emphasis on distributed trust over speed.

GNUnet is optimized for:

• censorship-resistant naming (GNS)

• distributed identity

• private group communications

Reference: Grothoff, 2017; GNUnet Architecture Documentation.

H. Yggdrasil Latency Characteristics (Encrypted IPv6 Mesh)

Yggdrasil provides encrypted routing but not anonymity.
It aims for fast, stable global mesh networking.

Latency Profile

• Low latency: 20–100 ms depending on proximity

• Comparable to VPN tunneling

• Faster than Tor and I2P in most cases

Reasons

1. Efficient DHT-based routing.

2. Minimal cryptographic overhead compared to onion routing.

3. Emphasis on secure connectivity, not anonymity.

Ideal for:

• decentralized applications

• peer mesh networking

Reference: Yggdrasil Whitepaper.

I. Nym Latency Characteristics (High-Latency Mixnet)

Nym is designed for maximum metadata resistance, not speed.

Latency Profile

• Several seconds to minutes

• Controlled delays intentionally disrupt timing correlations

Why High Latency?

Mixnets deliberately add:

• batching

• shuffling

• timing obfuscation

• multi-hop message mixing

Ideal for:

• whistleblowing

• private messaging

• metadata-resistant communication

Not suitable for:

• web browsing

• real-time activities

Reference: Kwon et al., 2017 (Loopix design); Nym Whitepaper.

J. Latency Comparison Table (Summary)

K. Why Latency Differences Matter

Each network optimizes for a different goal:

• Speed: Yggdrasil, Lokinet

• Balanced anonymity: Tor

• Decentralized anonymity: I2P

• Storage-based censorship resistance: Freenet

• Trust-based anonymity: GNUnet

• Metadata resistance: Nym

Latency is therefore a direct reflection of a network’s threat model and design philosophy, not a defect.