Hello. I just started using DarkMX so if I've misunderstood something feel free to correct me.

What I like:
1) Easy to use (like your other programs)
2) chats, file sharing, onion site hosting
3) Using onion services for connecting to each other allows uploading/downloading without port forwarding. Great for people that can't port forward (CGNAT).

What I don't like so much:
1) I feel bad for using Tor network for file sharing on DarkMX because it uses more bandwidth than browsing simple sites or reading things.

Suggestions:
1) Implement your own onion routing so bandwidth being used will partially or mostly(or even completely?) come from DarkMX users and not the Tor network. Some countries/ISPs block Tor and while you can configure it to use bridges, it might be better to have your own onion routing.

ME -> (user1) -> (user2) -> (user3) ->  <- (user4) <- (user5) <- (user6) <- SENDER
With each person having the option to pick the number of hops they want. In this example, ME and SENDER(the person I'm downloading from) are each using three hops. As another example, let's say your only concern was to avoid getting a letter from your ISP and not strong privacy then you could use only one hop.

2) Maybe take a hybrid approach where Tor could still be used for chat and some less bandwidth demanding things but DarkMX's own onion routing is mainly used for file transfer.

I couldn't edit my original post. Here's one more thing I meant to say: I think DarkMX is a good idea overall but it creates a dependency on Tor. While Tor is big and isn't going away but if there is an issue with it (like the onion v3 services not working. has happened before.) it will affect DarkMX.

Thanks for this input.  Much appreciated.

In the near future I will add a sort of 'trusted users' feature, where a share-group or perhaps just individual contacts can be designated 'trusted' and connect IP:IP.  This way large files can still be traded without using TOR so much.  The only barrier is when two users that are behind carrier-grade NAT try to connect, which is unfortunately becoming more common.

If we do a built-in custom TOR client, I would definitely have controls so the user can select a lower number of hops.  I'm sure response times would be greatly improved for those who don't need super-high anonymity.

And in the longer term, once we get a more substantial number of users, a new onion network of just DarkMX clients will probably be the best way forward.

If all of these get added, it would be cool to see a lot of customization. You could have the choice of different modes depending on the person's requirements. Each mode could be the default behavior with the option of overriding it for a certain person or certain file. Consider also supporting UDP for file transfers using DarkMX's own onion routing and direct connection transfers.

Here are a few examples:

1) Tor and/or DarkMX onion routing only. 3 hops always. (People that need high privacy)

2) Always prefer direct connections over anything else. (People that don't need privacy and/or are already using a vpn)

3) Prefer DarkMX's onion routing, falling back to Tor if both peers are unreachable.

Can you consider adding support for user/community translations? We could provide translations in the forum or import them from a file. In my opinion, I think having DarkMX and your other programs support other languages would help.

Speaking of carrier grade NAT, https://forum.fopnu.com/support/312

Combating any form of NAT is good. It makes so many things worse or impossible :/ Having a separate 'world' for a program that 'just works' is fantastic.
However I personally don't understand why the current way forward was chosen. If it's only due to NAT, I believe it could've been dealt with using any of the external approach (like "dedicated" network nodes providing STUN capabilities)

I wouldn't feel bad about "using Tor for file sharing". It's a structural problem, not architectural. You do feel bad? Setup your own TOR node, it doesn't need to be an exit node (which there's a serious lack of due to censorship and prosecution) - you give back the network what you take.

"Implement own routing" now this coupled with my missing understanding seems really off to me:
DarkMX does not use i2p (probably due to node life span/visibility requirements and "Java dependency" although there's i2p purple in steady development - a C++ i2p daemon)
DarkMX uses TOR to realize the idea which Tribler does at application level: multi-hop transport for bittorrent.

And with the above suggestions DarkMX would effectively take it upon itself to reinvent Tribler on top of TOR but then instead of using whatever the "usual" TOR routing, sponge up more complexity and redefine routing for its own network users.

Fopnu x Tribler x TOR, but potentially not really TOR and neither i2p. But why?

I don't want to be ignorant, if it appears so - probably due to my misunderstanding of technology and motivation. I love all of your programs and definitely will use DarkMX (even if this name is really going to be abused in FUD campaigns, think twice!). This long reply just should show how passionate I, we are.