On Sunday 31 Mar 2013 00:23:48 Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Matthew Toseland > <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > > Ideal Freenet cover traffic, or: > > How to make P2P a permanent fixture. > > What functionality do people want that can be provided by P2P, without > > ideological baggage? > > What you want is in the works. It's called webrtc. > > SCTP in DTLS for doing realtime communication (including multimedia) > between web-browsers without requring traffic to go via middleman > servers. Encryption is always on and mandatory. > > There are early deployments of it in Chrome and Firefox and large > amounts being dumped into the development.
Woah yeah, in-browser encrypted video chat without having relay through a central server! Nice. Also it looks like you can exchange whatever data you want, since the data channels can be used separately. The current spec doesn't provide a standard signalling channel, so fully peer to peer apps could be implemented using this (they can't be forced to use the standard signalling channel since there isn't one). Obviously this depends on exactly how it is deployed; the fact that it's a "web application", i.e. ultimately a page pulled from a server, isn't necessarily a problem. How do you ensure the person running the web page doesn't change the code? How do you avoid accessing the server every time you use the p2p app? The former is pretty hard for Freenet too, some of the install-this-as-an-app stuff may be relevant here? Maybe another way to install Freenet (JWS is looking rather less than shiny at the moment) ... You could for example implement a fully p2p VoIP system, with the original page used only for bootstrapping (i.e. like skype but with a proper PKI). (Of course it'd probably be easier to block than Skype, but it doesn't matter if it's widely used) I'll read the rest when I get around to it, but this looks very promising! Freenet on a web page? For it to work immediately it would have to be opennet; allowing transient connections on opennet is something we will have to decide on, but fundamentally it is problematic. Of course if you have a darknet invite, it would work better... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20130331/7ea67bee/attachment.pgp>
