> Exactly my point... why, then, does the common case need freenet.
It doesn't. This is bad how?
VD.
> But let us not forget what I consider to be more common use case (for
> which we are not optimized and has nothing to do with child porn)...
>
> I have a friend, and would like to communicate with him/her
> "securely" in an email or instant-message like way.
This is trivial without Freenet -
>> 1. Paying for becoming a "VIP" Freenet node is not out of the
>> question (people buy invites to elite torrent trackers for sizable
>> amount of money), but the benefits must be *very* obvious.
>
> There's no point if it's only the handful of elite nodes. It needs to
> be the bulk of the
> 2) Most people on Freenet have no real enemies and so care far too
> much about their friends' feelings and not enough about their actual
> enemies, compared to our threat model.
I think it's slightly different. Let's imagine I'm a passive pedophile;
a stranger sees me watching child porn in
A number of somewhat-connected observations from someone who had been
following Freenet since early 0.3 days:
1. Paying for becoming a "VIP" Freenet node is not out of the question
(people buy invites to elite torrent trackers for sizable amount of
money), but the benefits must be *very* obvious.
On 2013/07/22 (Jul), at 2:57 PM, Robert Hailey wrote:
> * If we use direct paypal, the paranoid will avoid it like the plague (paypal
> records!)
> ...
> * If we use vanilla yubikeys, the impatient will eschew the whole process by
> a wide birth, and the project doesn't get the funding.
On
On 2013/07/22 (Jul), at 2:22 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> One problem with the yubikey thing is it takes time to deliver them.
Depending upon the expected use case and average psychology (patience), that
might be the only critical issue... and yet, it would be an issue with *any*
hardware
For what it's worth, I think there is some potential here.
If Freenet were tweaked to favor performance slightly over cryptography and
anonymous routing(I'm not suggesting we get rid of these things
completely), it might be worth attempting to sell as a very cheap cloud
service. There is a
On 2013/07/22 (Jul), at 1:21 PM, Victor Denisov wrote:
> [Point to point communication] is [relatively easy] without Freenet
Exactly my point... why, then, does the common case need freenet.
--
Robert Hailey
On 2013/07/22 (Jul), at 12:53 PM, Robert Hailey wrote:
> It may be that Freenet cannot "win" in the p2p paranoia market until it makes
> that [communication] workflow trivial
At the risk of diverting attention away from (or confusing the ideas of) my
former discussion of using yubi for
On 2013/07/22 (Jul), at 12:32 PM, Victor Denisov wrote:
>> 2) Most people on Freenet have no real enemies and so care far too
>> much about their friends' feelings and not enough about their actual
>> enemies, compared to our threat model.
>
> I think it's slightly different. Let's imagine I'm
Hello,
I would like to expose some thoughts about the current move for the
deployment of Freenet on windows platforms.
Currently as far as i understand, toad and operhiem1 are the only to
maintain the windows installer of Freenet.
This Freenet installer and all Freenet EXE (freenet.exe,
On 2013/07/22 (Jul), at 12:22 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> IMO, the company/service going away ranks pretty low in the implementation
>> concerns.
>
> This does happen in practice. See e.g. Wikileaks. Companies can and do pull
> the plug on clients that cause press/political issues for
On 2013/07/22 (Jul), at 11:01 AM, Victor Denisov wrote:
> If I'm correct and an attacker will
> need to roughly match the network size for a successful attack, then
> matching a network of 100K nodes, each of which had paid, say, $5 to
> join, would require $500K - heck, even I, being a
On 2013/07/22 (Jul), at 9:32 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> ...almost everyone argues that darknet is impossible.
I wonder if this is really b/c "hermits don't have friends", or if there is
something between the theory and practice for which we have not accounted.
I have put much thought into
On 2013/07/22 (Jul), at 6:36 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Okay so the idea is:
> 1. Marketing: the user has something they can keep and use for other things.
> 2. Uniqueness/cost guaranteed by the manufacturer: We can use an online
> service to establish that it's a genuine, unique yubikey,
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Since Eleriseth announced he was leaving and we should focus on
> speed/usability, then opennet security, and only then darknet, I have been
> looking into options for securing opennet, and discussing this with various
> people.
>
I
On Sunday 21 Jul 2013 22:32:51 Robert Hailey wrote:
On 2013/07/21 (Jul), at 1:55 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Would you pay to join opennet? Bear in mind that a paid system could have
an interesting level of security - not quite up to that of a real darknet,
but most attacks would be
On Sunday 21 Jul 2013 23:20:40 Robert Hailey wrote:
I'm not 100% sure how this might work, but having opennet require a security
device might be publicly acceptable, and might also serve as the monetary
disincentive to an opennet sybil attack.
Without looking too much into it, I
On Sunday 21 Jul 2013 23:20:40 Robert Hailey wrote:
I'm not 100% sure how this might work, but having opennet require a security
device might be publicly acceptable, and might also serve as the monetary
disincentive to an opennet sybil attack.
Without looking too much into it, I
On Monday 22 Jul 2013 11:40:32 Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Sunday 21 Jul 2013 23:20:40 Robert Hailey wrote:
I'm not 100% sure how this might work, but having opennet require a
security device might be publicly acceptable, and might also serve as the
monetary disincentive to an opennet
Re: Would you pay to join opennet?
From:
toad-notrust@h2RzPS4fEzP0zU43GAfEgxqK2Y55~kEUNR01cWvYApI
Date:
Monday 22 Jul 2013 14:32:04
Groups:
freenet
Followup-To:
freenet
Public@yfAQXNfkUI3g5ghjRoRTMm2s2J8DBM9WuKJYqtkfTXc wrote:
toad-notrust@h2RzPS4fEzP0zU43GAfEgxqK2Y55~kEUNR01cWvYApI
Since Eleriseth announced he was leaving and we should focus on
speed/usability, then opennet security, and only then darknet, I have been
looking into options for securing opennet, and discussing this with various
people.
The main attacks here are:
- MAST: Listen for a predictable
On Monday 22 Jul 2013 16:57:35 Ian Clarke wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org
wrote:
Since Eleriseth announced he was leaving and we should focus on
speed/usability, then opennet security, and only then darknet, I have been
looking into
On Monday 22 Jul 2013 17:22:40 Robert Hailey wrote:
On 2013/07/22 (Jul), at 9:32 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
...almost everyone argues that darknet is impossible.
I wonder if this is really b/c hermits don't have friends, or if there is
something between the theory and practice for
On Monday 22 Jul 2013 17:22:40 Robert Hailey wrote:
On 2013/07/22 (Jul), at 9:32 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
...almost everyone argues that darknet is impossible.
I wonder if this is really b/c hermits don't have friends, or if there is
something between the theory and practice for
On Monday 22 Jul 2013 17:01:08 Victor Denisov wrote:
A number of somewhat-connected observations from someone who had been
following Freenet since early 0.3 days:
1. Paying for becoming a VIP Freenet node is not out of the question
(people buy invites to elite torrent trackers for sizable
On Monday 22 Jul 2013 17:10:56 Robert Hailey wrote:
On 2013/07/22 (Jul), at 6:36 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Okay so the idea is:
1. Marketing: the user has something they can keep and use for other things.
2. Uniqueness/cost guaranteed by the manufacturer: We can use an online
On Monday 22 Jul 2013 18:08:57 Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Monday 22 Jul 2013 16:57:35 Ian Clarke wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org
wrote:
Since Eleriseth announced he was leaving and we should focus on
speed/usability, then opennet
On Monday 22 Jul 2013 19:11:05 Robert Hailey wrote:
On 2013/07/22 (Jul), at 12:53 PM, Robert Hailey wrote:
It may be that Freenet cannot win in the p2p paranoia market until it
makes that [communication] workflow trivial
At the risk of diverting attention away from (or confusing the
On Monday 22 Jul 2013 19:00:03 Victor Denisov wrote:
1. Paying for becoming a VIP Freenet node is not out of the
question (people buy invites to elite torrent trackers for sizable
amount of money), but the benefits must be *very* obvious.
There's no point if it's only the handful of
On Monday 22 Jul 2013 19:07:46 Michael Grube wrote:
For what it's worth, I think there is some potential here.
If Freenet were tweaked to favor performance slightly over cryptography and
anonymous routing(I'm not suggesting we get rid of these things
completely), it might be worth attempting
On Monday 22 Jul 2013 20:23:48 Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Monday 22 Jul 2013 19:07:46 Michael Grube wrote:
For what it's worth, I think there is some potential here.
If Freenet were tweaked to favor performance slightly over cryptography and
anonymous routing(I'm not suggesting we get
What about bundles?
- Inserts are mainly slow because of the downstream nodes, right? Inserts go to
20+ nodes atm.
- So the number of parallel bundles necessary, even to maintain full speed, may
be relatively low?
- Lets say we go 5 hops random routed as a bundle (i.e. without diverging).
This
34 matches
Mail list logo
