On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 17:23 +0100, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > And it would all be a huge amount of work - and without some real > > scarcity backing it it would achieve very little. What's cheap for > real, > > lowest common denominator users but expensive for attackers? AFAICS > > nothing, not even IP addresses. > > Darknet. That’s why we have it. > > Could we stop the talk about paying for opennet once and for all — > and > instead start fixing Darknet? > > We still have no one-click darknet introduction bundles, and no > darknet FOAF. As long as I cannot send a friend a zip with a prepared > Freenet node which connects to me and can route over my darknet > friends, any work which only benefits opennet shows totally warped > priorities.
That has been the official project line for decades: "do opennet stuff because that's what people use (and think they want) and we can get funding for" ... we don't disagree on the fact that it's warped priorities... but what you seem to assume is that we can have a hybrid network that's secure. I don't think so; Current status-quo is definitely not good- enough in my threat model, does it work for yours? If not, what needs implementing to get it there? Florent _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
