Leaderboard

Hello! Tables include data that's 7 years old (connection slots three, countries 16, servers 138?!? it's something from 2014), screenshots are taken from another web site, the concerns about the terms of service are taken from a fantasy world (*). They are so inept hat they even failed to report correctly our prices. They do not clearly state that they are paid by our competitors, while we always refuse to pay for reviews which is probably what bothers them most, because if this fair practice was widespread, there would be no more room for bogus reviews parasites. (*) Please read the Terms of Service yourself and you'll see. It's like in some part they are talking about some other VPN service, as if the article was a frankenstein-ish copy & paste and something went wrong with a mixture of different service reviews .🤣 Note that this thread will soon be moved to trash forum. Kind regards

@Flx The first message was approved by some moderator in the wrong thread, not a big deal. Then we moved the message on its own thread, this one. Then user "wireguard" posted more messages which were all approved by some moderator. @Brainbleach Of course. We were replying to "wireguard" who invites surreptitiously to punish AirVPN because AirVPN uses and develops actively OpenVPN: "Needless to say, investing in AirVPN means investing in OpenVPN, and that's not acceptable to me at this point," . He/she also kept claiming that "it's time to retire OpenVPN" (sic), that OpenVPN is a "truly disgusting hack" (sic) and so on,. showing his/her embarrassing ignorance and lack of good faith. Nothing to do with your messages. Funny how bogus account writers are so eager to become from time to time AirVPN software lead developers, general managers for AirVPN strategies, marketing directors and more. 😀 We wanted to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that his/her claim are unreasonable and based on wrong assumptions and terrible omissions, showing how Wireguard can not replace OpenVPN for a significant percentage of our customers and how our OpenVPN development has been beneficial for many users around the world. That said, we claimed that Wireguard needed to be developed and tested further years ago, so at the time our claim was totally reasonable. We also claimed years ago that the problem was not with CHACHA20 which to the best of nowadays knowledge is a very robust and secure cipher. Now the problems are different because Wireguard is asked to offer something which it was not designed for, i.e. providing some kind of anonymity layer. Such problems include lack of DNS push, lack of dynamic IP address assignment (with subsequent problems with client key-private address static correspondence, a very tough legal problem for us but above all for our customers), need of keeping client real IP address stored in a file. We have resolved them one by one with external software and internal work around. Once the problems are resolved in a robust way, which means testing thoroughly the adopted work-around, we can offer Wireguard, not earlier. Kind regards