@JibJab 3 out of 4 correct 
Slow: correct
inconvenient: correct
untrustworthy: not correct (well, tbh, at least in some edge use cases I wouldnt trust it; otherwise ok)
overkill: definitely correct
Slow: depends
Inconvenient: depends
Untrustworthy: FUD
Overkill: wrong
@Lukas excuse me, what? Please show me use case where Tor is NOT slow?
I agree. Although I would not do some serious things (like banking) in Vivaldi.
As someone who used Tor system-wide, there are a lot of use cases where Tor isn’t noticeably slow. That’s why it depends.
@Lukas will repeat myself: show me examples of where Tor is fast/not slow?
So you dont use it system-wide anymore. Wondering why?
I play games, I also have video calls, need to use some websites that block Tor.
This applies to everything that doesn’t require high bandwith and low latency.
For me 21 Mbps is quite enough for general browsing. For HD video, it’s also acceptable. I don’t really need more.
Update your browser.
Thanks. I know. It’s Cromite. It often offers to update 
Where exactly would you need 250 Mb/s down when using Tor?
@Lukas not using Tor currently, but, knowing speeds of Tor, speed of this height would be needed everywhere…
OK update time: while using Tor, speed went down by close to 50%
while using Tor
How tf did you get 140Mbps?
Peak conflux before it pushed to stable I couldn’t get more than 80Mbps.
I know you can easily do 200Mbps over Tor, but you have to strategically use multiple circuits over both your guards. A test like fast.com won’t do that.
3 Likes
Tor Project also makes available long-terms stats: Performance – Tor Metrics
Average seems to be 5Mbps.
Dont ask me. No idea man
My wild guess would be that Im near some exit node…
That isn’t how it works.
Wouldn’t change anything.
I think that this has something to do with fast.com.
I know the timing mitigations of RFP can directly hinder fast.com specifically with how they measure, so that is indeed the likely cause.
Just flawed results.