On 03/11/15 21:07, Bob Ham wrote: > My argument is that what is most useful to the world is an ecosystem of > implementations of a well documented, robust protocol for > censorship-resistant publishing. That is not realistic for the time being IMHO. Primarily because users of Freenet have to run a node, not just a client.
1. It requires caching potentially evil data on your hard disk. Most people aren't willing to accept this, even if they are okay with relaying traffic for Tor. 2. It requires uptime, CPU and disk resources, enormous amounts of bandwidth, and friends willing to run Freenet. 3. It's a distributed system: The protocol goes beyond headers into behaviour. (We're not going to see eye to eye on this one!) This is why we are not likely to have much useful collaboration with other projects, to answer Ximin's point. Freenet is not just a protocol, it's a network, you can't just add it to a web browser, because it has to have a node to talk to. Transient nodes have been suggested, but AFAICS that only makes sense if you have some way to secure opennet. Even with tunnels (ShadowWalker can resist up to 20% Sybil), I don't think that is possible.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
