On 07/01/14 20:59, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Matthew Toseland > <t...@amphibian.dyndns.org>wrote: > >> On 07/01/14 17:00, Ian Clarke wrote: >>> It's not really clear what you are proposing here, what is the context? >> We should allow, optionally, tunneling the first hop over Tor or I2P. >> Hence: >> - We implement a simple binary protocol over TCP. > You don't think that Freenet is already cumbersome enough for people to get > set up with, without suggesting that they install an additional anonymity > tool and running everything through that also? > > Are users asking for this? Yes, people are asking for it. And I said it would be an optional feature.
And Freenet does not compete with Tor. If Tor and Freenet only did anonymity then everyone would use Tor. It has more anonymity and you can get to more things with it. (Most of which will ruin your anonymity!) But Freenet is a distributed datastore. It *stores data*, in a decentralised, censorship proof way. Which Tor does not do. Also IMHO in the long run it could have greater anonymity. We are not competing with Tor. We cannot possibly compete with Tor, because we do things differently, we provide a different product, and if all the user cares about is anonymity then they are going to use Tor, period.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
