On 02/12/15 17:29, Ian wrote: > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Matthew Toseland <[email protected]> wrote: >> Downsides: >> - Cheap denial of service attacks. Asymmetrical. Maybe we could make it >> bandwidth-symmetrical, e.g. by requiring bogus data transfers to balance >> both directions, but is that enough? >> - Tor is much more likely to be blocked than Freenet. :( > The most obvious downside to me is that we'd basically be combining all of > the disadvantages of Freenet with all of the disadvantages of Tor. It > doesn't make sense to me. > > Imagine if you could only run Linux if you were using it in an emulator on > top of Windows. I doubt it would be very popular. Yeah, the idea is that it's an option for the paranoid. People keep asking for it so AFAICS there is demand.
Just getting it out there. Also, given that for now the best we can hope for (for the global network) is a network of darknet pockets linked by opennet, this is a relatively cheap way to provide something approaching acceptable security. I believe it could be implemented relatively quickly. But I agree that it probably shouldn't be the default. Unless you think the focus should be on enabling specific sub-communities to create their own darknets which are not connected to the rest of the world, with the main network and opennet just being a "shop front", a demo version? Maybe we should work more directly with organizations as opposed to individual users, who might be able to deploy substantial disconnected darknets?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
