Tahoe-lafs is not the same.
Freenet, if I understood it correctly, distributes files in blocks over
multiple nodes, not defined by a configuration but by demand.
Figured due to being demand based, Freenet wouldn't be useful
to people who expect that their singularly unique and useful to them
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:25:35 +0100
folkert folk...@vanheusden.com wrote:
In short: can't we combine these two?
Others have done it, so it can be done. Others have combined tor and
tahoe-lafs as well. I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you
throwing the idea out there to see if others agree and
just implement a proxy for tor in http://offsystem.sourceforge.net/
2012/12/17 folkert folk...@vanheusden.com
Hi,
We have Tor, we have Freenet. One is for protecting network sessions,
the other one for data.
In short: can't we combine these two?
Freenet serves a purpose but it is, for the
In short: can't we combine these two?
Others have done it, so it can be done. Others have combined tor and
tahoe-lafs as well. I'm not sure what you're asking.
Tahoe-lafs is not the same.
Freenet, if I understood it correctly, distributes files in blocks over
multiple nodes, not defined by a
Yes, offsystem sounds like freenet.
But it is another program you have to install, configure and whatnot.
I especially opt for integration in Tor to simply the use.
Yes, freenet has installers etc but it is Java and everybody seems to
hate Java these days and all CERTs seem to advise people to
Hi,
We have Tor, we have Freenet. One is for protecting network sessions,
the other one for data.
In short: can't we combine these two?
Freenet serves a purpose but it is, for the average user, way too
complicated/too much of a hassle to install and work with. Especially
since Java became a
