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 About. > If it upsets a corporation then they can find you, e.g. by asking the > police for a favour (yes they do do favours for corporations!). So this > is just about preventing your friends from discovering that you write > slash fiction? Better not add them as darknet peers then...
If they hack Freenet to spy on me, then I made a wrong choice of friends. They might be upset about things which could turn up on a random Google search without being willing to actually attack my privacy. > > We cannot fix that. We could reduce that, though, by only providing > > indexes in the default bookmarks which are created by anonymous people > > who don’t include offensive content. > That depends on the volunteers, as it always has. Do we tell them that? > >> 2. Freenet needs an always-on always-connected device, especially on > >> darknet. Most people don't have one, the costs are significant. > > This is not true. 2-12 hours runtime are completely OK. We would have > > this using mobile phones which run Freenet only while plugged into > > power and already mostly charged and connected over WiFi. > Darknet needs high uptime, or at least strongly correlated uptimes. 2 > hours is definitely not enough - even with FOAF connections, you'll be > lucky to find enough peers. It’s OK when some only have 2 hours, as long as others have 12 or 24 hours. > >> 3. Darknet is slow. > > This is not true. 5-10 Darknet connections are enough to get good > > performance. > Right, and with FOAF we could have tens of peers. But you do need the 5+ > friends to start with. That's hard. with FOAS 3+ would suffice. > I agree that this part is fixable and we must fix it: There are lots of > technical things we can do to make darknet work better, easier and faster. Yes, and those are the things we should do before discussing to death how we could fix opennet if that would prove to not work. > We need an opennet to link up all the slowly expanding darknet pockets. > For now. I think Opennet is already good enough for that. Let’s focus on improving Darknet. > >> Marginally. Old opennet peer connections don't often work because when > >> you want to reconnect your old peer probably doesn't - even if it hasn't > >> changed its IP address. > > Why can’t we fix that? > How? The immediate problem is that the other side 1) may have changed IP > and 2) may have moved on, i.e. got other peers. That's not obviously > fixable? We could allow old peers to go over the limit (i.e. keeping 20% additional slots open). > > I want to say this once and clear: Anything which makes it harder for > > people to join is a really, really dumb idea, and charging money will > > make it harder for legitimate users while making it easier for > > attackers (who have a lot more money). > In which case the only possible hope is darknet. The problem is building > a big global darknet is hard. We haven’t even been trying for years, so we don’t know. Most of the obvious improvements for Darknet are open bugs, documeted for years. > > If we want to consider any pay-layer, it would be > > pay-for-fast-darknet-peer. That does not need any centralization. > What does that even mean? Offer people that they can connect to one or more high-speed darknet peer for a monthly payment. > > We still have no one-click darknet introduction bundles, and no > > darknet FOAF. As long as I cannot send a friend a zip with a prepared > > Freenet node which connects to me and can route over my darknet > > friends, any work which only benefits opennet shows totally warped > > priorities. > You really think it is possible to build a big global darknet quickly > enough that opennet's vulnerability doesn't matter? I think that improving Darknet will be less work than improving Opennet, and that it will yield much stronger improvements in security than spending the same amount of work on improving Opennet. > IMHO even in the best case scenario we will have to link darknet pockets > via opennet for many years. Because the barriers to using darknet are > high enough that most people who use Freenet don't have any friends > willing to do so. And will remain so even with some performance and > usability enhancements. I don’t think this is still true. I’m pretty sure that if 50% of Freenet users would try to get their friends to connect via Darknet, they’d on average get at least one or two darknet peers each. Best wishes, Arn
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
