-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > And in the meantime, they have a system which costs $10M to block (any > time you have to involve politicians you get into big money, for a > start), instead of $10K. This is bad how...?
As I've said, what, 4, 5 times so far in this thread, Freenet/dark will be fine and good in the small scale. But once it reaches the large scale, it will not be, as you seem to now agree (beyond research purposes). What does this mean - that you shouldn't build it? No, but it does mean it shouldn't be hyped as a "globally scalable darknet", since once it grows, it won't be usable for those its intended for. In your other mail, you say: > If we sacrifice real-time delivery, then we can make freenet traffic > look vaguely plausible, but it will still be between the same set of > peers. So it should be reasonably easy to build a back-end to find it, > over a longish period, say 6 months, based on traffic data kept... I'm not as convinced as you that high latency comm would fail - the amount of traffic that needs to be hidden is much, much less than the total amount of traffic of the "carrier channel" - if you go to thousands of websites a month, two of which have stego for you, analysis is not trivial. The trouble comes when dealing with low latency and high traffic. In any case, we do disagree about the necessity of scale, but that we can safely agree to disagree. Most people involved in various political or activist groups fall for the dream of The People United. I do not. But reasonable people, even with many common aims, disagree. C'est la vie. =jr -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDTXTSWYfZ3rPnHH0RAnyXAJ0eYYo1EjQds/FEyXF/OLoN3eMF+ACeOP0f cX0UPtBagqzv5nQnNxzo72E= =s2r0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
