On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 11:12:33AM -0400, jrandom at i2p.net wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi Toad, et al > > I've also read identiguy's blog, and I must say that while I don't entirely > agree with his interpretation (as there /are/ ways for Freenet to move forward > to meet real user's unmet needs) it does seem that a large amount of the > motivation and tech being worked on could be reused from other sources, rather > than reinvented. > > Its a bit of a shame, as for hard anonymity, users *need* medium to high > latency comm, the likes of which Freenet is in a position to specialize in. > In addition, for those who need hard anonymity against state level > adversaries, low latency comm will never be sufficient. Turning Freenet into > yet another low latency mix network doesn't seem like a great idea. > > You've also suggested ulterior motives behind this duplication, both in > private and in public, but I'll only respond to the technical issues here. I > think you owe it to your users to put any ulterior motives out of bounds when > evaluating the technical needs for anonymity.
Fair enough.
