Re: [freenet-dev] What blocks Freenet adoption?

[Matthew Toseland]

On 03/02/16 22:28, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Matthew Toseland writes:
>
>> A proper documented
>> plugin API will help - and there has been some work on documentation.
>> Getting WoT working well will help, and better deployment of our
>> existing tools e.g. Sone...
> Not to forget tutorials which are easy to follow.
>
> To cut it short: This is what we need to make it easy to join:
>
> http://stevelosh.com/blog/2013/09/teach-dont-tell/

Right. I believe we already have a plugin writing tutorial?
>
> Best wishes,
> Arne



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Similarity between original SSK proposal and Bitcoin contracts

[Peter Todd]

On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 09:06:57PM +, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On 04/02/16 20:32, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > I've been reading about Bitcoin Contracts
> > , and I'm surprised by the
> > similarity between these and, not just SSKs, but particularly the original
> > proposal for SSKs  from way back
> > in June 2000, which involved a stack based language with cryptographic
> > primitives, just like the language used for Bitcoin contracts.
> >
> > I don't know if the Bitcoin approach was inspired by SSKs at all, I suspect
> > more likely independent reinvention to solve a similar problem.
> 
> Perhaps. It's relevant to the PSKs discussion.
> 
> In practice what you can do with Bitcoin script is severely restricted
> by the miners... but there is no obvious reason for this that would also
> apply to Freenet key verification.

Actually that's no longer true! If you're using P2SH, scripts are
allowed to be pretty much anything, provided that you keep the total
number of signature operations less than a reasonable limit.

The real limit isn't the "standardness" rules that miners apply, but
rather that the scripting language itself is very limited.
Multiplication, division, bitwise operations, and string operations
(like concatenation) were disabled years ago and haven't been re-added.
That said, new opcodes can be added, so in the future this may change.


And yes, it's very interesting to finally find an example of pre-Bitcoin
script-like schemes; as far as I know Freenet and Bitcoin itself are the
only examples out there; I'd love to know of more!

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0196ed57c58b7af01654e535f4e8d870b77490b40e481259


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Similarity between original SSK proposal and Bitcoin contracts

[Matthew Toseland]

On 04/02/16 20:32, Ian Clarke wrote:
> I've been reading about Bitcoin Contracts
> , and I'm surprised by the
> similarity between these and, not just SSKs, but particularly the original
> proposal for SSKs  from way back
> in June 2000, which involved a stack based language with cryptographic
> primitives, just like the language used for Bitcoin contracts.
>
> I don't know if the Bitcoin approach was inspired by SSKs at all, I suspect
> more likely independent reinvention to solve a similar problem.

Perhaps. It's relevant to the PSKs discussion.

In practice what you can do with Bitcoin script is severely restricted
by the miners... but there is no obvious reason for this that would also
apply to Freenet key verification.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] What blocks Freenet adoption?

[Hieronymus]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Good morning list

I can second that.

People in our local hackerspace (ruum42.ch) gave me the same answer
after inquiring if there's someone running freenet as well.

mit li(e)bertären Grüssen
  Hieronymus


Am 04.01.2016 um 05:27 schrieb Steve Dougherty:
> I will respond in more detail from my desktop, but for now I can add a
> specific example: today I learned of someone who was curious to see what
> Freenet was about after talking about it. After installing it on their
> Windows 10 laptop, they opened Linkageddon and figuring to see what "more
> controversial" things were on offer, found links to illegal material, and
> decided to uninstall for reasons of:
>
> - Not being able to keep the machine online regularly.
> - Unsettling material and being afraid of getting in trouble.
>
> - Steve
>
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016, 8:26 PM Arne Babenhauserheide 
wrote:
>
>> I asked myself that question. These are my answers. Please add yours!
>>
>> Note: This is just for listing. Please don’t discuss these before January
>> 16th.
>>
>> What blocks Freenet adoption?
>>
>> - Our themes look clunky and our web-interface is slow. Why is access
>>   to bookmarked activelinks slow? Why isn’t 404 sent instantly (for
>>   bookmarked activelinks) -> remove the checkbox “has an activelink?”,
>>   just check instead. Prefetch activelinks at random intervals.
>>   -> FreeStyle announced in FLIP to be working on new themes.
>>
>> - Hackers in-the-know reject Darknet due to the non-implemented fix
>>   for the Pitch Black Attack. It’s been simulated several years ago
>>   and just needs implementation.
>>
>> - Our installers often fail -> Work is already being done for Windows
>>   and OSX (short of being deployed) and for Debian packages. Gentoo
>>   mostly works (except for a hard-to-trace compression bug).
>>
>> - No working Darknet invites. We say “use darknet”, but advise
>>   against that (“only connect to …”) and don’t make it easy and
>>   useful. And new Darknet users get horrible performance. I invited
>>   about 5-7 people over the past years, and at least 3 left again
>>   because Darknet with a single friend is slow. For the others I
>>   moderated the noderef exchange with my existing friends by manually
>>   sending them each others references. To get adoption via Darknet,
>>   this has to be fast on the initial connection without additional
>>   manual interaction ← requirement.
>>
>> - WoT consumes too many resources (build 18 is faster, but my node
>>   OOMs now, also without Sone).
>>
>> - New users don’t see what they can do with Freenet. We don’t fix
>>   that, because starting to use WoT takes over an hour, so most of our
>>   services can’t be shown to new users. -> Sharesite should improve
>>   that (publish easily: due to Tor inproxies “Freenet is the easiest
>>   way to publish a site in Tor”) -> recover Freemail v1 or recover
>>   LCWoT and LCIntro and activate them by default (switching to
>>   regular WoT once it works well enough will be easiy thanks to
>>   having the same FCP interface). -> recover flircp and add it as
>>   official plugin, active by default with random name per startup
>>   to avoid timing attacks. Autoconnect to #public or such.
>>
>> - Does not work on mobile phones -> now that db4o is gone, it could be
>>   worthwhile to change that. Using only while connected to power and
>>   wifi should give 8-16 hours uptime (given that people plug in their
>>   phones at night, at work and in trains), which is more than what
>>   half the nodes in Freenet have. Freenet can cope with 30% backoff,
>>   so being offline 30% of the time should work.
>>
>> - Opennet starts slowly. Our seednodes are overloaded. -> announce
>>   through previous peers.
>>
>> - Our website looks much better now, but it still needs serious design
>>   work to get on par with modern sites. It’s at a point where I’m
>>   happy to show it, but not yet at a point where someone who randomly
>>   hits the site instantly feels a desire to try Freenet.
>>
>> As you see, most of these can be fixed.
>>
>> Please add what I missed.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Arne
>> --
>>   Writing about Freenet
>> http://draketo.de/stichwort/freenet
>>
>> ___
>> Devl mailing list
>> Devl@freenetproject.org
>> https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
> ___
> Devl mailing list
> Devl@freenetproject.org
> https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWtBVDAAoJEG5W4gdtnpgzPK0P+wYL4uHVe78SxHABk1kLrfaw
OFuIBKStUmzwbI10peInC5ujP9/x4r7LaZrd7f3xW4/g/GoVIJq/MTND20Dz/oMj
pl4pdmVtN+yixQdNylcTeZ5Kcxhz3GByqaeQBrE0yY0FdfGqQgZUqU7IW11c9RvS
RD/6/2DDyz/+AAClETdj3gb0qB7aN6W4ACJJ+FeZqAIy7ylE4pUDWbHncHW0gQh0
3s3upxVshu3WJ8iMsR0ufiF5+WTicthKJ+aQn8CS3Duxa0CXXXM4QVH8FO7E5h01

Re: [freenet-dev] What blocks Freenet adoption?

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

Matthew Toseland writes:

>> http://stevelosh.com/blog/2013/09/teach-dont-tell/
>
> Right. I believe we already have a plugin writing tutorial?

Nothing which really works. The latest is mine, and it’s not up to the
standard I would expect — partially because all the other tutorials did
not work at all.

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

[freenet-dev] Similarity between original SSK proposal and Bitcoin contracts

[Ian Clarke]

I've been reading about Bitcoin Contracts
, and I'm surprised by the
similarity between these and, not just SSKs, but particularly the original
proposal for SSKs  from way back
in June 2000, which involved a stack based language with cryptographic
primitives, just like the language used for Bitcoin contracts.

I don't know if the Bitcoin approach was inspired by SSKs at all, I suspect
more likely independent reinvention to solve a similar problem.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Clarke
Founder, The Freenet Project
Email: i...@freenetproject.org
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl