>>19640
I use varius anonymity/security tools, but i try to learn when is ok and when is useless
in this bbs is not important, but is not so good if someone sees tor traffic only when is imporatnt ;)

>>19641
I think you mention 2 different problems
>security via obfuscation
this is common phrase about security of cryptosystem and has specific meaning: "security of system depends on secrecy of key only" vs "security of system depends on secrecy of mechanism"
second is obfuscation and considered much worse (no serious security) because the mechanisms can be probed/guessed with more advanced methods and because is secret not much people can study and find errors etc ("secrecy breeds incompetence" t. assange)
first is considered good cryptosystem but is not always true when claimed because to be true is necessary proven mathematics and machine implementation
mathematic proof is sometimes partial (or "assuming the security of blahbla...") and the implementation proof is very rare
so pragmatically first method is required for security but you can also use obfuscation for low value extra

>blending in, hiding in plain sight
this is related to anonymity but I think maybe you misunderstand something because "darknet" (lol) is not mean "hiding out of sight" (is not invisible, probably they say "dark" because they don't understand so is dark for their mind ;) then darknet/anonymity network is also "blending in, hiding in plain sight"
anonymity objective is alwyas same: not "make invisible" (physics is hard) however is "make all sameness/indifferent"
useragent spoofing is only one example but is useless alone, there are too many more sides in the dice