On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:33 AM bawolff <bawolff...@gmail.com> wrote:
> See also related discussion last year > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-November/084143.html > > And the year before, and before that, and before that... it's a perennial proposal ;-) > Personally I think this whole thing is a bad idea > * Its questionable how much this would actually save anything. Cached > anon hits are pretty cheap > Indeed. > * This basically doesn't do cach invalidation. Lets just have > vandalism stay around for long periods of time > Yep, that's always been a problem in these proposals. * Probably makes it much easier for third parties to determine what > you are browsing. (Censorship resistant p2p networks is still an open > research problem last I checked) > Plus this. > * Probably makes it easier for adversaries to selectively censor > specific articles > [I haven't looked at the implementation, but I'm going to guess here] > Basically because of the above. > * Questionable how it would verify content is legit. What's stopping a > malicious actor from putting random malicious js into the p2p network, > or someone replacing articles with biased versions. > > Same thing here. That being said....I'm curious if there's some sort of middle ground here. I wonder how much (c|w)ould be saved by serving static assets (CSS, UI images, etc etc) via P2P. Prolly not much in the US/Europe, but in places with poor latency this could be interesting. -Chad _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
