Ok I take as "noone in the gnunet mailing list ever heard of ivp8". Christian, didn't you either?
https://github.com/Tribler/tribler/wiki https://py-ipv8.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pouwelse-trustchain-01 http://pure.tudelft.nl/ws/files/41225519/article.pdf https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167739X17318988 Thank you, Lluís. On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 01:07:29PM +0200, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote: > Hello, > > IPv8 provides "overlays" over internet, which are isolated networks with > its own addressing based public key identities and not rented IP > addresses. They also accomodate for some anonymity with onion routing. > > Multiple overlays can coexist in an application to achieve a service, > where multiple identities serve different purposes. > > The trustchain is an interesting blockchain to decentralize trust, over > which multiple applications can be built. Financial, reputation, etc. > These are used for the onion routing too. Articles about trustchain are > easy to find. > > The TU Delft people put on practice since many years these concepts in > their Tribler VideoStreaming program. > > I also don't know what is not reasonable about IPv4 and UDP; ipv8 is the > transport that hides any particular IP details, be it IPv4, UDP or > anything else. > > In any case I'm interested in opinions of those who did not just stop > reading at the front page of the python docs. :) > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 12:21:10PM +0200, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > > On 13. Apr 2020, at 12:02, Lluís Batlle i Rossell <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I think that GNUNet and TUDelft's ipv8 (and whole ecosystem of trustchain, > > > onion routing, etc.) have a big overlap. > > > > > > Is there any shared work? or declaration opposite work? Or evaluation of > > > both by one or the other side? > > > > I do not think there is any detailed review or comparison. I have never > > heard of it until now. > > Reading the "Feature" section here [1] I do not think this is well thought > > through concept. > > It cites two publications, one of them only dealing with NAT and at the > > same time claiming it is "academically pure" (whatever that means, I assume > > they mean "sound"? The papers are 7-9 years old). > > It relies on UDP via IPv4 as transport which does not seem like a > > reasonable choice given the options on the table today. > > Flexibility with respect to transports is something we have identified as a > > core issue. Especially since eliminating metadata-exposing > > transports/addressing on the physical layer is what we need in the long run. > > > > To be honest I also stopped reading at "ledger-based storage of reputation > > data". > > Without trying to bash, looks to me like yet another blockchain-based > > future internet tech. > > The website at least fails to provide the key value offerings. Are there > > other resources? > > If they have any insights into better NAT handling, that would a great > > resource, but the paper is already 9 years old so I would assume people > > read it already. > > > > BR > > Martin > > > > [1] https://py-ipv8.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Lluís. > > > > > > -- > > > (Escriu-me xifrat si saps PGP / Write ciphered if you know PGP) > > > PGP key 7CBD1DA5 - https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/ > > > > > > > > > -- > (Escriu-me xifrat si saps PGP / Write ciphered if you know PGP) > PGP key 7CBD1DA5 - https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/ > -- (Escriu-me xifrat si saps PGP / Write ciphered if you know PGP) PGP key 7CBD1DA5 - https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/
