On 08/04/2011 04:50 PM, ya knygar wrote: >> yes, any sort of FBX proposal that entirely drops support for existing >> DNS is going to have very poor adoption rates. We shouldn't shoot >> ourselves in the foot like that. However, we should also provide >> mechanisms for people to participate in a naming scheme that is more >> resistant to powerful/centralized attack, if possible. > i think - providing the decentralized distributed social networks with FBX, > along with hosting service, would dramatically increase the use of these > possible domain networks. FBX's could be the routers to some kind of > "othernets" and should be, i think. If users of FBX's, fbx'd OS's etc. could > receive the fast and reliable method to use these "freenets" with their > hardware and/or software -- interest in that "freenet", combined with > eventual > possibilities of free video-calling, and other highly possible > wireless benefits, > - could eventually become the key reasons for potential users.
Yep. Right on. That's the business plan. :) > i think - the experienced TAC members could propose the definition for > some "freenet" > and enlist the benefits. Among these mentions of darknets - i'v seen - > people have mentioned > the essential idea of "other Internet", not like a particular solution. Let's not hold the TAC up as the end all/be all. We are all equal on this list. > >> it would also >> be silly to make a device that just feeds your personal data and >> relationship information back into the same centralized social >> gatekeepers many of us are currently subject to. > +1 Mmhmm. -Charles Wyble (who is about 40 hours away from releasing the FreedomNode reference implementation). Hope everyone else is hacking away.... _______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
