On 26.01.2018 15:58, carlo von lynX wrote: > This time there aren't dozens of things keeping me from > answering in due time! :) Sorry for the delay regarding > pubsub. > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 01:07:08AM +0100, amirouche wrote: >> I got into creating a new logo for gnunet >> logos and mockup at https://imgur.com/a/ZOjNU > Fabulous. I didn't dare to drop the gnu on > the web which made all my attempts look > little better than the original, but doing > a network of cuddly bubbly nodes is a new > way to look at it. Great.
+1 > For this bubbly version, my partner obviously > liked the pink one best.. and she said we can > reduce the number of letters in bubbles by > using the 'N' twice as in: > > GNU* > *E** > *T** > **** Would be nice to see this version in action too. >> Starting up with the Internet is broken is >> not very positive and most likely people >> coming to the website already know that. +1 > I heard somebody making the same observation. > >> I think about: ethical, energy efficient, secure >> and anonymous. > In > regards to 'anonymous', not only is it too early to > make that claim, it is also a word with too many > meanings that could one day become detrimental. > Maybe we could focus on 'metadata protection', while > pointing out that the interactions themselves are > actually end-to-end authenticated, not anonymous. > But, truth is, we don't know how well gnunet protects > metadata if CADET isn't actively routing in non-deter- > mistic ways, yet. Once we have onion routing and > mixnets it's a different story. Yes, metadata protection is better, and yes we have to be careful with that. By the way, is it a stupid idea to let the endpoint of a cadet path be not the endpoint of user communication, to protect meta data? Maybe this is easier to accomplish than onion routing, or an additional protection together with OR. > >> Distributed Application Framework > A network stack is always about applications you do > on top. The fact that it brings 'distributed networ- > king' into the generic domain of application design > is the novelty. With bogus javascript libraries > calling themselves 'framework' I would avoid such a > reductive term. We are replacing TCP/IP with a stack > that is by far more advanced and complex. We should > actually find words that make it clear that we are > doing something bigger than the current Internet. > Calling it a "distributed networking stack" is the > least we can do IMHO. In ancient Roman terms I would > say we are upgrading from the latrines to the Coliseum. What about "Next Generation Internet" NGI? cheers t3ss
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ GNUnet-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers
