Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

On 30/11/15 21:05, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 19:36:43 schrieb Matthew Toseland: >> How much of this is due to default settings where it didn't manage to >> autodetect via UPnP? How much to users not making informed choices? > And why do we have such low default

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 19:58:38 schrieb Matthew Toseland: > > Even regular E-Mail providers, G+ and Facebook did not find a way to > > get a significant number of users to pay — for a service which is > > clearly essential for todays communication. Why do you think people > > would pay for

[freenet-dev] My project

My project for university this year involves improving the efficiency of simulations of Freenet (by configurably bypassing the lower layers) and using that to test load management. Ideally I'd like to simulate The Patch and show that it causes problems, and simulate some of the proposed

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 20:54:38 schrieb Matthew Toseland: > 1) Stick our heads in the sand and sing the glories of opennet, in spite > of clear evidence of it being irredeemably broken, or > 2) Hope that more people use darknet. Binary choices are almost always (self-) deception. 3)

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

On 30/11/15 21:10, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 19:58:38 schrieb Matthew Toseland: >>> Even regular E-Mail providers, G+ and Facebook did not find a way to >>> get a significant number of users to pay — for a service which is >>> clearly essential for todays

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 19:36:43 schrieb Matthew Toseland: > How much of this is due to default settings where it didn't manage to > autodetect via UPnP? How much to users not making informed choices? And why do we have such low default settings? Best wishes, Arne signature.asc

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 19:36:43 schrieb Matthew Toseland: > How much of this is due to default settings where it didn't manage to > autodetect via UPnP? How much to users not making informed choices? There are two peaks. Would both be from UPnP? Best wishes, Arne signature.asc

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

On 30/11/15 21:12, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 20:54:38 schrieb Matthew Toseland: >> 1) Stick our heads in the sand and sing the glories of opennet, in spite >> of clear evidence of it being irredeemably broken, or >> 2) Hope that more people use darknet. > Binary

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Canary

On 30/11/15 16:40, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Hi, > > Am Freitag, 27. November 2015, 18:07:50 schrieb > salutarydiacritica...@ruggedinbox.com: >> There was a Sybil attack for 4 years. The Freenet 0day has been around >> for so long that LE contractors have built a kit around it. > It’s not a

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Canary

Hi, Am Freitag, 27. November 2015, 18:07:50 schrieb salutarydiacritica...@ruggedinbox.com: > There was a Sybil attack for 4 years. The Freenet 0day has been around > for so long that LE contractors have built a kit around it. It’s not a zeroday. According to the article, they used a known

Re: [freenet-dev] Security quibbles was Re: Freenet Canary

Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 14:58:39 schrieb Matthew Toseland: > On 30/11/15 13:40, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > Am Samstag, 28. November 2015, 14:52:23 schrieb Matthew Toseland: > >> But then Freenet was always just one piece of the puzzle > Okay, first, can we agree on this bit? "Freenet

Re: [freenet-dev] Security quibbles was Re: Freenet Canary

On 30/11/15 16:23, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 14:58:39 schrieb Matthew Toseland: >> On 30/11/15 13:40, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >>> Am Samstag, 28. November 2015, 14:52:23 schrieb Matthew Toseland: - a research project really. >>> I don’t think people

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

On Nov 30, 2015 11:09 AM, "Bert Massop" wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Michael Grube wrote: > > This is true of everything that money can buy. Which is everything, with > >> the possible (and slightly dubious) exception of social

[freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

We have several major problems: 1. We need a major injection of cash. 2. We will not have a big connected darknet any time soon. 3. Opennet is not secure unless users pay for introduction. 4. Opennet is slow because of lowest common denominator load. I propose: Freenet Rebooted. A Kickstarter,

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > The price paid to become part > of the network infrastructure is mainly a deterrent to large scale > attacks, rather than a means of raising revenue. > > Thoughts? I read this as "The price paid to become part of the

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

On 30/11/15 15:55, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On 30/11/15 15:48, Ian Clarke wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote: >>> 3. Opennet is not secure unless users pay for introduction. >> Who would they pay, and how would this be implemented in a

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

On 30/11/15 15:54, Bert Massop wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> The price paid to become part >> of the network infrastructure is mainly a deterrent to large scale >> attacks, rather than a means of raising revenue. >> >> Thoughts? > I read

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

This is true of everything that money can buy. Which is everything, with > the possible (and slightly dubious) exception of social capital / > friends. A big global friend-to-friend darknet is a good long term > solution but the problem is how to get to that point. Please, please PLEASE don't

Re: [freenet-dev] Security quibbles was Re: Freenet Canary

On 30/11/15 13:40, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Samstag, 28. November 2015, 14:52:23 schrieb Matthew Toseland: >> But then Freenet was always just one piece of the puzzle Okay, first, can we agree on this bit? "Freenet is one piece of the puzzle". It doesn't provide a secure operating system

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 15:29 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > We have several major problems: > 1. We need a major injection of cash. > 2. We will not have a big connected darknet any time soon. > 3. Opennet is not secure unless users pay for introduction. > 4. Opennet is slow because of lowest

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > 3. Opennet is not secure unless users pay for introduction. > Who would they pay, and how would this be implemented in a decentralized way? Given that we already have a shrinking userbase despite Freenet being free,

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

On 30/11/15 15:44, Florent Daigniere wrote: > On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 15:29 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> We have several major problems: >> 1. We need a major injection of cash. >> 2. We will not have a big connected darknet any time soon. >> 3. Opennet is not secure unless users pay for

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

On 30/11/15 16:09, Bert Massop wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Michael Grube > wrote: >> This is true of everything that money can buy. Which is everything, with >>> the possible (and slightly dubious) exception of social capital / >>> friends. A big global

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Michael Grube wrote: > This is true of everything that money can buy. Which is everything, with >> the possible (and slightly dubious) exception of social capital / >> friends. A big global friend-to-friend darknet is a good long term >>

Re: [freenet-dev] Security quibbles was Re: Freenet Canary

On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 17:23 +0100, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > And it would all be a huge amount of work - and without some real > > scarcity backing it it would achieve very little. What's cheap for > real, > > lowest common denominator users but expensive for attackers? AFAICS > > nothing,

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 15:50 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On 30/11/15 15:44, Florent Daigniere wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 15:29 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > Thoughts? > > This assumes that Sybil is the only attack against opennet... which > > is > > clearly misleading. Sybil is

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 15:55:13 schrieb Matthew Toseland: > Not if we jettison the slower opennet nodes, which is also part of the > proposal. A lot of our performance issues are actually because we target > an outdated lowest common denominator. Sadly this isn’t true: Most of our users

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 17:09:29 schrieb Bert Massop: > > Please, please PLEASE don't murder me for suggesting this, but what if we > > used social media to bootstrap network connectivity? > > How is that different from Darknet? It isn’t, it just makes it easier to connect via Darknet.

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 20:20 +0100, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 17:09:29 schrieb Bert Massop: > > > Please, please PLEASE don't murder me for suggesting this, but > > > what if we > > > used social media to bootstrap network connectivity? > > > > How is that

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

This mail is split in 2 parts: 1. A summary of part 2, which also includes stuff which is not in part 2. 2. A copy of a previous reply of mine to a similar proposal. Most of what's said there applies to this as well. Part 1 follows: I think we shouldn't randomly change our strategy from what

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

On 30/11/15 19:17, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 15:55:13 schrieb Matthew Toseland: >> Not if we jettison the slower opennet nodes, which is also part of the >> proposal. A lot of our performance issues are actually because we target >> an outdated lowest common

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 15:29:25 schrieb Matthew Toseland: > 3. Opennet is not secure unless users pay for introduction. Even regular E-Mail providers, G+ and Facebook did not find a way to get a significant number of users to pay — for a service which is clearly essential for todays

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

On 30/11/15 18:11, xor wrote: > This mail is split in 2 parts: > 1. A summary of part 2, which also includes stuff which is not in part 2. > 2. A copy of a previous reply of mine to a similar proposal. Most of what's > said there applies to this as well. > > > Part 1 follows: > > I think we

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

On 30/11/15 19:34, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 15:29:25 schrieb Matthew Toseland: >> 3. Opennet is not secure unless users pay for introduction. > Even regular E-Mail providers, G+ and Facebook did not find a way to > get a significant number of users to pay — for

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

On 30/11/15 19:21, Florent Daigniere wrote: > On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 15:50 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> On 30/11/15 15:44, Florent Daigniere wrote: >>> On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 15:29 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: Thoughts? >>> This assumes that Sybil is the only attack against opennet...

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

On 30/11/15 19:58, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On 30/11/15 19:34, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >> Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 15:29:25 schrieb Matthew Toseland: >>> 3. Opennet is not secure unless users pay for introduction. >> Even regular E-Mail providers, G+ and Facebook did not find a way to

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Rebooted (without rewriting everything, pay for opennet)

I am strongly against this pay-for-opennet strategy until we've exhausted other funding options. To my knowledge we have only contacted 3 potential donors out of many! Frankly, I doubt we could even put together a successful kickstarter campaign at this point, given that we can't bother to write a

Re: [freenet-dev] Security quibbles was Re: Freenet Canary

Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 16:45:43 schrieb Matthew Toseland: > On 30/11/15 16:23, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > Assume that you like to write horror songs in the Star Trek > > universe. 20 years ago you would have published that under a Pseudonym > > in specialized journals, like Let’s Filk

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Canary

Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 17:02:26 schrieb Matthew Toseland: > > It’s not a zeroday. According to the article, they used a known > > vulnerability which takes time and careless behavior of the users to > > exploit. > Careless behaviour of the users? I didn't see any details? Clearly once >

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Canary

Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 17:02:26 schrieb Matthew Toseland: > > I just had a funding proposal turned down which included transport > > plugins and easy darknet introductions with one-time tokens. Florent > > is constantly working on keeping the crypto state-of-the-art. > This is great, so is

Re: [freenet-dev] My project

Hey toad, It's nice to see you back in the community. You know, NS2 can actually simulate more or less anything you can think of with quite a bit of accuracy. I know there are also extensions to add parallelism. You may want to consider writing a Freenet library for ns2 as on option because it

Re: [freenet-dev] Security quibbles was Re: Freenet Canary

Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 20:09:04 schrieb Florent Daigniere: > > Could we stop the talk about paying for opennet once and for all — > > and instead start fixing Darknet? > > > > We still have no one-click darknet introduction bundles, and no > > darknet FOAF. As long as I cannot send a

Re: [freenet-dev] Security quibbles was Re: Freenet Canary

Am Samstag, 28. November 2015, 14:52:23 schrieb Matthew Toseland: > But then Freenet was always just one piece of the puzzle - a > research project really. I don’t think people contributed or donated for that. Also, and I agree with earlier complaints about that, a research project does not need