On 4/20/17, Christian Grothoff <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't recall seeing anything that would suggest that the IPFS project > is concerned with privacy/anonymity (beyond "use Tor"), and furthermore, > their use of a (public) block chain for naming entities also suggests > that IPFS is not suitable for private data. > > I'm not saying that they are doing anything "wrong", but it seems some > of the high-level goals or priorities are different, as are some of the > methods they use. Hence, I would not consider them a rip-off.
On 4/20/17, Louis Pearson <[email protected]> wrote: > I am no expert, but I doubt they are trying to rip off gnunet. From > what I recall, what they are trying to make a more permanent, as in less > dead links and so on. From what I've read on the secushare website, > gnunet is more aimed at decentralization. I could, of course, be > completely wrong, but nothing seemed off about IPFS when I was looking > at it awhile ago. IPFS's concept of multi-hash and multi-[etc] file formats could help in making GNUnet less esoteric. More explicit binary could also help. Documenting in binary rather than pseudo-code should give contributors cause to justify complexity before adding it. The more complex GNUnet is the more difficult it would be to audit. The worst antt-security/anti-freedom'anti-feature attribute to have. _______________________________________________ GNUnet-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
