Re: Gradle et al

On 10/01/18 21:51, Florent Daigniere wrote: > On Wed, 2018-01-10 at 21:36 +0000, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> On 10/01/18 21:15, Florent Daigniere wrote: >>> On Wed, 2018-01-10 at 21:10 +, Matthew Toseland wrote: >>>> So what is going on, and why? >>>&

Re: a test release for 1480

On 08/01/18 19:14, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Hi, > > I uploaded an archive with the files for 1480: jar, installer, …. > > CHK@MvoTOkbcT--mONuKwklk7CtunQcta1vIxLd9Abr~6Ck,rXO7Nj2L0-Bytn8WorayXo9EvERPz0SS169YdIolndA,AAMC--8/freenet-1480.tbz > > mkdir freenet-1480 > mv freenet-1480.tbz

Re: Gradle et al

On 10/01/18 21:15, Florent Daigniere wrote: > On Wed, 2018-01-10 at 21:10 +0000, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> Could somebody summarise what the plans are, and what the reasons >> behind >> them are for: >> >> 1. Gradle, >> >> 2. Deployment/upd

Gradle et al

Could somebody summarise what the plans are, and what the reasons behind them are for: 1. Gradle, 2. Deployment/updating of JARs etc. I get the impression that this has been a major factor preventing forward progress for over a year. This is particularly depressing given that more than five

Re: We need a fix for update.cmd

On 08/12/17 21:04, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Hi, > > The new windows installer is prepared, I can release any day, but > there's still one critical piece missing: we need update.cmd fixed to at > least download freenet-stable-latest.jar from github instead of trying > to use the defunct

Re: DDG Tasks Bug Bounty Proposal

On 08/05/17 18:21, Steve Dougherty wrote: > Original Message > Subject: Re: DDG Tasks Bug Bounty Proposal > Local Time: May 8, 2017 1:09 PM > UTC Time: May 8, 2017 5:09 PM > From: free...@nullvoid.me > To: devl@freenetproject.org > > Can you provide the minimum identification

Re: DDG Tasks Bug Bounty Proposal

On 06/05/17 14:11, Freenet wrote: > Could this be solved by paying a known third party? Such as bountysource > or something? > > And from there the developer who creates the patch could still remain > anonymous and gain the funds? Bountysource FAQ: > As part of the cash out process we require a

Re: DDG Tasks Bug Bounty Proposal

On 06/05/17 12:36, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On 06/05/17 10:53, Steve Dougherty wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> To my understanding, at least currently xor does not want FPI to pay him for >> his work. Some developers on FMS have proposed bug bounties - say, $1000 - &g

Re: DDG Tasks Bug Bounty Proposal

On 06/05/17 10:53, Steve Dougherty wrote: > Hi everyone, > > To my understanding, at least currently xor does not want FPI to pay him for > his work. Some developers on FMS have proposed bug bounties - say, $1000 - > for completing a task like "fix Windows tray / installer to work with 64-bit >

Re: [freenet-dev] poll: start writing offers

On 28/01/17 15:57, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Hi, > > > The poll concluded a few weeks back and exceeded its hopstolive.¹ We > should adhere to it and spend the money. I think we should start by > writing offers in Freenet forums to pay people to do the highest ranking > tasks and move to

Re: [freenet-dev] Alternate evaluations to get a robust top 20; was: Poll results available; Temporary quit as potential employee

On 14/12/16 12:28, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Arne Babenhauserheide writes: > >> Arne Babenhauserheide writes: >>> The most robust result of the poll is: we should definitely do these >>> five tasks: >>> >>> - Darknet invitation bundles (requires single use references) >>> - Improve FProxy

Re: [freenet-dev] Poll results available; Temporary quit as potential employee

On 09/12/16 07:07, x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > Ian and Florent have voiced concerns about whether my involvement in the poll > could be influenced by the prospect of me benefiting financially by > potentially being able to resume my job for Freenet. > > I want to provide you with a solid

[freenet-dev] Fwd: [announce-crypto] BC Security Advisory (was: Strange result with modular math functions)

I think this doesn't affect us as we use ephemeral DH and then sign it with ECDSA? Florent? Forwarded Message Subject:[announce-crypto] BC Security Advisory (was: Strange result with modular math functions) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 13:55:55 +1100 From: Peter Dettman

Re: [freenet-dev] Ian et al: Poll conclusions

On 27/11/16 21:08, x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > On Sunday, November 27, 2016 09:29:45 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >> x...@freenetproject.org writes: >>> There are some tough administrative decisions remaining to make about >>> stage 3, namely which voters to exclude from stage 3 because

Re: [freenet-dev] Internationalization on the new site

On 03/11/16 05:52, Dan Roberts wrote: > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Florent Daigniere < > nextg...@freenetproject.org> wrote: > >> >> Do you have any plan to handle the bank-balance stuff? Or is that gone >> in the new design? > I'm doing my best to avoid any "design" decisions, so I had no

Re: [freenet-dev] Fake GPG key attack on a Freenet developer

On 24/09/16 03:45, x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > http://www.draketo.de/english/gnupg-attack > > This happened at an interesting point in time: > The financial allocation poll was finished last Sunday and I wanted to > publish > the results - but the GPG signatures of at least 4 participants

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 4

On 31/08/16 17:11, x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > Hereby we begin the 4th stage of the financial allocation poll. How's this going? Do you have any votes from anyone else yet? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Devl mailing

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 4

On 31/08/16 17:11, x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > Hereby we begin the 4th stage of the financial allocation poll. > > You may participate by filling your estimates in to this spreadsheet and > mailing it back: > https://github.com/xor-freenet/freenet-money-poll/archive/2016-stage4.zip > > It has

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

On 28/08/16 19:48, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 1:32 PM, Matthew Toseland mj...@cam.ac.uk wrote: > On 28/08/16 19:29, Ian wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Matthew Toseland <mj...@cam.ac.uk> >> wrote:> That's not what was asked. My priori

Re: [freenet-dev] Migrating the wikis and bugtracker: please keep the bugs!

On 28/08/16 19:35, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 12:22 PM, Matthew Toseland mj...@cam.ac.uk wrote: > What matters more is the bug tracker: The poll is problematic because > > half of the suggestions are technically illiterate. > > > There was more than enough tim

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

I have in private advised you on your career goals on several occasions, though I'm hardly qualified to give such advice. The serious, non-personal point here is that we need to plan to raise more money if we want to have more paid employees. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

On 28/08/16 19:29, Ian wrote: > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Matthew Toseland <mj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Asking us not to take into account the technical >> difficulty of each task when prioritizing arguably > That's not what was asked. My prioritization proposal

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

On 28/08/16 19:23, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On 02/08/16 23:47, x...@freenetproject.org wrote: >> Hereby we begin the 3rd stage of the financial allocation poll. >> >> You may participate by filling your votes in to this spreadsheet and >> mailing it back: >> https

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

On 02/08/16 23:47, x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > Hereby we begin the 3rd stage of the financial allocation poll. > > You may participate by filling your votes in to this spreadsheet and > mailing it back: > https://github.com/xor-freenet/freenet-money-poll/archive/2016-stage3.zip > > It has

[freenet-dev] Migrating the wikis and bugtracker: please keep the bugs!

On 20/08/16 07:01, Florent Daigniere wrote: > On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 22:31 -0400, Steve Dougherty wrote: >> On 08/12/2016 04:00 PM, Florent Daigniere wrote: >>> On Thu, 2016-08-11 at 14:28 +, Ian Clarke wrote: Why don't you set a date since you're the one that would do it? >>> >>> I have

Re: [freenet-dev] Which #FOSS project should get a free, EU-funded audit? Vote now:

On 04/07/16 21:29, hyazin...@emailn.de wrote: > All reading this who are living in an EU member state can participate at this > survey - briefing with links to survey link: > https://juliareda.eu/2016/06/eu-free-software-security-audits/ Be careful what you wish for. The technical feasibility

Re: [freenet-dev] Reducing the peer count (2 pull requests)

On 13/06/16 17:09, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Hi, > > > I’m writing for two reasons: > > - The new 10KiB/s minimum bandwidth is too high for some users. > - With 1474 few users are able to keep more than 70 connections.¹ ... > ¹: See https://asksteved.com/stats/plot_peer_count.png — this used

[freenet-dev] Freenet 0.7.5 build 1474 is finally released!

hours. If it still doesn't work, the update.cmd or update.sh scripts may fix the problem, but they will access our website in a traceable manner. Thank you for using Freenet! - Matthew Toseland Git shortlog: Bert Massop (4): BloomFilter: additional sanity checking of length and hash count

[freenet-dev] Build 1474 status and the Frostbite attack

.jar.new then change it to freenet.jar. If it says freenet.jar then don't do anything. Now replace freenet.jar with the jar you just downloaded from Freenet. Official release notes: $ git tag -v build01474 object ced0ba20a7ffba7fdf05466d00bf6cb585c28bc9 type commit tag build01474 tagger Ma

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal to make unit-tests in Freenet easier to implement

On 07/05/16 11:35, Ian Clarke wrote: > Hey Martin, > This sounds like a great idea. Classes should only require the dependencies > they > actually need, partially because it makes unit testing much easier, as you > point > out. > So if a large node object is being passed to classes that only use

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal to make unit-tests in Freenet easier to implement

On 07/05/16 11:10, Martin Byrenheid wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I've spend some time thinking about how to make it easier to test Freenet's > different subsystems, especially without having to instantiate the whole > Freenet Node class for almost every test. One possibly helpful idea that came

[freenet-dev] Simulations was Re: Planning process step #1: Broad resource areas

On 06/05/16 03:48, x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > This mail shall contain only my ideas about your proposals. > I've posted my proposals in a reply of its own. > It's easy to discuss the both of them in separate threads. > > > On Friday, May 06, 2016 12:02:08 AM Ian Clarke wrote: >> * Speed - >>

[freenet-dev] Re darknet enhancements

On 06/05/16 03:04, x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > Thanks! > I'll start with my proposals. I'll put ideas about your proposals in a > separate reply, it's easier to discuss different people's proposals in a > thread of their own. > USE FRIENDLINESS > > Darknet enhancements. > > These are

Re: [freenet-dev] Proposal for a democratic process to efficiently allocate resources (including the $25k)

On 06/05/16 00:10, x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > On Friday, May 06, 2016 12:33:12 AM x...@freenetproject.org wrote: >> At the current exchange rate, it would be 23.6 hours/week. >> This is the average of what I had delivered during the past few months of >> work. In other words, the $27500 was

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet New User Usecases

On 02/05/16 23:05, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Hi, > > Florent asked me today what Freenet usecases can be done easily. > > I gathered some, most usable first.¹ > > > The first few are also shown in an example video session ☺ > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8a8em-4m0w Should this be linked

Re: [freenet-dev] Law-enforcement lying to courts about how Freenet works

On 02/05/16 13:34, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Matthew Toseland writes: > >> You can still do a classic correlation attack: Connect to the node for >> the whole duration of the request and count the proportion of the file >> they've fetched from you… > This might

Re: [freenet-dev] Law-enforcement lying to courts about how Freenet works

On 01/05/16 22:32, x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > On Sunday, May 01, 2016 11:20:33 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >> https://www.ncjtc.org/ICAC/Courses/trngres/Freenet%20Investigations%20White >> %20Paper%20-Black%20Ice%20%20%28090413%29.pdf > This link is dead nowadays. > > Archive.org has

Re: [freenet-dev] Law-enforcement lying to courts about how Freenet works

On 01/05/16 22:20, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Not quite a paper, just some calculations which show their math is > wrong: > > http://127.0.0.1:/freenet:USK@sUm3oJISSEU4pl2Is9qa1eRoCLyz6r2LPkEqlXc3~oc,yBEbf-IJrcB8Pe~gAd53DEEHgbugUkFSHtzzLqnYlbs,AQACAAE/random_babcom/210/#Iamdarknetonlyagain

Re: [freenet-dev] Mitigate the Pitch Black attack (the simulation works)

On 22/04/16 21:31, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Matthew Toseland writes: > >> On 09/02/16 08:58, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >>> Because in normal swapping, as soon as the network settled a bit, the >>> changes in location should be small (though my nodestats

Re: [freenet-dev] Possibly obsolete code in AnnounceSender and reordering problem during opennet announcements

On 01/03/16 13:52, Martin Byrenheid wrote: > On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 05:38:09 PM Matthew Toseland wrote: >>>> The message should have been matched anyway: Unmatched messages (in >>>> MessageCore are added to a data structure and we check before timing out &g

Re: [freenet-dev] Streaming audio over Freenet

On 09/03/16 10:11, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Dienstag, 8. März 2016, 22:18:22 schrieb Bert Massop: >> On 08-03-16 21:29, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >>> So I see two ways forward: >>> >>> >>> 1. Just live with the limitation of browsers and limit m3u to external >>>applications. >>>

Re: [freenet-dev] freenetproject.org traffic: Pretty good

On 10/03/16 20:40, hyazin...@emailn.de wrote: > Have a look at this: https://www.similarweb.com/website/freenetproject.org > Looks pretty good. It's new that China is in the TOP 5 of visitors splitted > by origins... How is that possible? We've been blocked for over a decade - both the website

Re: [freenet-dev] Possibly obsolete code in AnnounceSender and reordering problem during opennet announcements

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 03:39:05PM +0100, Martin Byrenheid wrote: > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 09:18:17 PM Martin Byrenheid wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 06:45:46 PM Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > Bandwidth limiting, message priorities, something of that

Re: [freenet-dev] Possibly obsolete code in AnnounceSender and reordering problem during opennet announcements

On 23/02/16 17:53, Martin Byrenheid wrote: > Hello again, > > in the current Freenet-code, the realRun-method of the AnnounceSender class > contains a check whether opennet is disabled [1]. However, (if I understood > the code correctly and) if opennet is disabled, no Instance of the >

Re: [freenet-dev] Request for improvement node behavior because of ISP NAT translation timeout now is less than 5 seconds

On 20/02/16 12:31, vastik_spbm wrote: >> On 19/02/16 14:53, vastik.spbm@yahoo wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I will explain my problem. >>> My ISP decided to fight with torrents DHT and changed udp nat >>> translation timeout to 5 seconds. >>> What does it mean. It means that if udp packet won't

Re: [freenet-dev] Request for improvement node behavior because of ISP NAT translation timeout now is less than 5 seconds

On 19/02/16 14:53, vastik.spbm@yahoo wrote: > Dear all, > > I will explain my problem. > My ISP decided to fight with torrents DHT and changed udp nat > translation timeout to 5 seconds. > What does it mean. It means that if udp packet won't return from > destination within 5 seconds NAT wont

Re: [freenet-dev] Problem with handling of Opennet Announce Requests

On 18/02/16 13:43, Steve Dougherty wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 6:30 AM Martin Byrenheid < > martin.byrenh...@tu-dresden.de> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> while working with Freenet, I discovered that whenever a seed node >> received an >> OpennetAnnounceRequest-message for a target location X, it

[freenet-dev] Swap requests over opennet a bad thing? was Fwd: Re: Swap requests in Freenet

See also https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=6820 Forwarded Message Subject:Re: Swap requests in Freenet Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 09:46:52 +0100 From: Stefanie Roos <stefanie.r...@tu-dresden.de> To: Matthew Toseland <mj...@cam.ac.uk>, Mart

Re: [freenet-dev] Mitigate the Pitch Black attack (the simulation works)

On 09/02/16 08:58, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Matthew Toseland writes: > >> Awesome! We need to: >> 1) Implement this. > Yepp. > >> 2) Publish it. > We should… Stefanie and Michael might be able to gain something from > that. Maybe you, too? > &g

Re: [freenet-dev] Mitigate the Pitch Black attack (the simulation works)

On 09/02/16 14:12, Michael Grube wrote: > All, > > Please excuse my absence. I have been very preoccupied. I am OK with the > idea that we should publish and am willing to spend time assisting with > that effort. > > However I should disclose that I am doing research on creating a method > very

Re: [freenet-dev] Mitigate the Pitch Black attack (the simulation works)

Awesome! We need to: 1) Implement this. 2) Publish it. Why is reinserting the whole datastore important in the case of an attack? AFAICS we are looking for a gap much larger than the node's local average peer distance? In practice this is likely to vary a lot because of different node degrees

Re: [freenet-dev] What blocks Freenet adoption?

On 03/02/16 22:28, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Matthew Toseland writes: > >> A proper documented >> plugin API will help - and there has been some work on documentation. >> Getting WoT working well will help, and better deployment of our >> existing tools e.g. Son

Re: [freenet-dev] Similarity between original SSK proposal and Bitcoin contracts

On 04/02/16 20:32, Ian Clarke wrote: > I've been reading about Bitcoin Contracts > , and I'm surprised by the > similarity between these and, not just SSKs, but particularly the original > proposal for SSKs from

Re: [freenet-dev] What blocks Freenet adoption?

On 03/02/16 10:36, Travis Wellman wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-01-04 at 02:26 +0100, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >> >> What blocks Freenet adoption? > I mention Freenet in conversations often. > > I think #1 is that it's slow. Slow means that people who don't have to > use it won't. Our users who

Re: [freenet-dev] PSK keys

On 02/02/16 17:24, x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > Hi, > > I'm the maintainer of Web of Trust [2] and Freetalk [3], which are the first > systems which will likely be deployed as installed by default for purposes > subject to what you proposed with PSKs. As I understand it, Sadao is interested

Re: [freenet-dev] PSK keys

On 31/01/16 04:06, Sadao wrote: > Hi all. > > > Three years ago I started a thread on FMS with the topic "Efficiency of > various freenet message systems", where I proposed to implement a new key > type (PSK) in order to make a base for creating spam-protected moderated > messaging systems in

Re: [freenet-dev] Separation of freenet-ext component parts

On 10/01/16 16:31, Florent Daigniere wrote: > On Sun, 2016-01-10 at 16:13 +0000, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> On 10/01/16 15:33, Ben Green wrote: >>> Hello freenet-dev, >>> >>> In a recent comment on a pull request: >>> >>> https://github.com

Re: [freenet-dev] Separation of freenet-ext component parts

On 10/01/16 15:33, Ben Green wrote: > Hello freenet-dev, > > In a recent comment on a pull request: > > https://github.com/freenet/fred/pull/29 > > Steve said: > > 1471 isn't going to split freenet-ext either. Hrm. > > I would like to help with this as I have recently had the dubious pleasure of

Re: [freenet-dev] What blocks Freenet adoption?

On 05/01/16 16:32, x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > Overall comment about your mail: I think such threads are *asking* to cause a > flamewar. Pick lots of random, unrelated stuff, and complain about its state > - > the "lots of" guarantees that you'll make as many developers feel affected >

Re: [freenet-dev] Issues in BaseL10n and in BaseL10nTest in the current code

On 02/01/16 16:24, Rostislav Krasny wrote: >> Hi Rostislav, >> >> Thanks for the patch! A few thoughts: >> >> - this mixes formatting, style, and functional changes, which should be >> avoided. > The formatting and style changes are minimal. I just don't like mixing > several formatting styles in

Re: [freenet-dev] New UPnP2 plugin

On 26/12/15 16:03, Ian wrote: > Best practice is to use the logging system, using System.out.println() for > logging is almost universally regarded as bad practice, many static > analysis tools will automatically flag it as a problem. > > The example you gave in NodeCrypto is not best practice,

[freenet-dev] Logging policy

On 26/12/15 13:05, Xiaoyu Huang wrote: > System.out.println() is for easier debugging as I can see the results > directly in wrapper.log. > > I see many examples in Fred code that uses both Logger and println(). An > example in NodeCrypto.java line around 136: > >

Re: [freenet-dev] New UPnP2 plugin

On 27/12/15 19:55, Ian wrote: > On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Matthew Toseland <t...@amphibian.dyndns.org >> wrote: >> On 26/12/15 16:03, Ian wrote: >>> Best practice is to use the logging system, using System.out.println() >> for >>> logging is almost

[freenet-dev] Uptime stats

http://127.0.0.1:/USK@pxtehd-TmfJwyNUAW2Clk4pwv7Nshyg21NNfXcqzFv4,LTjcTWqvsq3ju6pMGe9Cqb3scvQgECG81hRdgj5WO4s,AQACAAE/statistics/1057/plot_week_uptime.png According to ArneBab, this has changed significantly recently due to a bug fix: We were over-counting high uptime nodes. So we have fewer

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Canary

On 04/12/15 03:37, xor wrote: > On Thursday, December 03, 2015 05:12:37 PM Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >> Am Mittwoch, 2. Dezember 2015, 14:34:41 schrieb Ian: >>> That being said, I do think the project would significantly benefit from a >>> new and much more engaged leader, ideally with project

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet showstoppers

On 03/12/15 00:27, Psalle wrote: > On 03/12/15 00:44, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> On 02/12/15 22:34, Psalle wrote: >>> Let me hijack the topic at this point (following Victor Denisov trail) >>> into another though experiment: instead of arguing what Freenet needs >>

[freenet-dev] Disk thrashing was Re: Freenet showstoppers

On 03/12/15 07:20, Victor Denisov wrote: >> As a /user/, freenet is extraordinarily heavy for the computers I've >> used it on (some of them not that low spec). Disk trashing in some of >> them was so interfering with normal use to make it unbearable. > It's gotten from "computer is unusable

Re: [freenet-dev] Disk thrashing was Re: Freenet showstoppers

On 03/12/15 17:48, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On 03/12/15 07:20, Victor Denisov wrote: >>> As a /user/, freenet is extraordinarily heavy for the computers I've >>> used it on (some of them not that low spec). Disk trashing in some of >>> them was so inter

[freenet-dev] First hop over Tor

This has been suggested a few times but there were various worries. I think the following is the most coherent proposal evolution so far: Freenet: Tor first hop: - Different protocol, TCP based. Don't need transport plugins. -- "Do requests/inserts" - closer to client layer, not FNP. May return

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Canary

On 01/12/15 21:59, salutarydiacritica...@ruggedinbox.com wrote: > > You picked the one thing agencies have boat loads of and made it a > requirement for operating critical parts of the network and you > alienate the honest users left. Have you thought of any better ways to > kill Freenet? That's

Re: [freenet-dev] First hop over Tor

On 02/12/15 17:29, Ian wrote: > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Matthew Toseland <mj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> Downsides: >> - Cheap denial of service attacks. Asymmetrical. Maybe we could make it >> bandwidth-symmetrical, e.g. by requiring bogus data transfers to

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Canary

On 02/12/15 20:34, Ian wrote: > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Victor Denisov wrote: > >> This is very interesting, it is - but I'm afraid the true reason Freenet >> is struggling as a software development project is much, much simpler. >> If I can put my two kopecks' worth

Re: [freenet-dev] Darknets (One more way to look at opennet weakness)

On 02/12/15 21:40, Matthew Toseland wrote: > There's one more way to look at this: > > The global network, "Freenet" as an entity, is our shop front. The real > business in the medium term is helping existing communities and > organisations to build their own, disconnected

[freenet-dev] Darknets (One more way to look at opennet weakness)

There's one more way to look at this: The global network, "Freenet" as an entity, is our shop front. The real business in the medium term is helping existing communities and organisations to build their own, disconnected darknets. This might have positive consequences for funding - working more

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet showstoppers

On 02/12/15 22:34, Psalle wrote: > Let me hijack the topic at this point (following Victor Denisov trail) > into another though experiment: instead of arguing what Freenet needs > or could do, I'll contribute my *chief* reason not to use it (I've > been running it from time to time since around

Re: [freenet-dev] Fwd: Promiscuous opennet

On 01/12/15 18:35, Juiceman wrote: > I originally sent this email 3 and a half years ago. > Would it help to limit seednodes acceptance of announcement attempts to > once per hour? Would slow harvesting down and encourage uptime from users... There are some throttling measures already. But they

Re: [freenet-dev] My project

te a proposed solution. I want to make it possible to test changes to routing and load management efficiently but with the actual code. > On Nov 30, 2015 4:52 PM, "Matthew Toseland" <mj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > >> My project for university this year involves improving th

[freenet-dev] Darknet uptimes are the key issue

On 01/12/15 00:25, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Am Montag, 30. November 2015, 16:45:43 schrieb Matthew Toseland: >>>> 2. Freenet needs an always-on always-connected device, especially on >>>> darknet. Most people don't have one, the costs are significant. >>>

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

On 30/11/15 23:58, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > For my personal threat model hybrid works. Whistleblowers definitely > need darknet with FOAF. > > What security properties would you assume for someone who has a > darknet connection with FOAF (explicitly: routing over all darknet > peers of the

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

void using slow nodes in tunnels if we want reasonable performance. > > -Charles > > On 11/30/15 10:29 AM, 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

Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet Canary

On 01/12/15 00:32, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > 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 >>>

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 hav

[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)

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 >>>

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

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] 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 re

[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 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 <mj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: >>> 3. Opennet is not secure unless users pay for introduction. >> Who would they pay, and

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 <mj...@cam.ac.uk> 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 revenu

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 secu

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 +0000, 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

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 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 o

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

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 +0000, 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 S

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 Fac

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

On 28/11/15 10:34, Florent Daigniere wrote: > On Fri, 2015-11-27 at 18:07 -0500, > salutarydiacritica...@ruggedinbox.com wrote: >> Let's talk about the bad news and the way forward. >> >> There was a Sybil attack for 4 years. The Freenet 0day has been >> around >> for so long that LE contractors

[freenet-dev] Update FAQ entry

Q: Has anyone got into trouble for their anonymous activities while running Freenet? A: US law enforcement can identify anonymous users of Freenet[1] and Tor[2]. It is reasonable to assume that other governments have access to the same technology, which is provided by private contractors. If you

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >