On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 06:25:39PM -0400, jrandom at i2p.net wrote: > > > Why don't you ask a Chinese dissident whether they would prefer > > us to work on an impractical but "perfect" system based on > > steganography, or a system that would be useful for all practical > > purposes in the near-term. > > In the near term, Freenet will operate on the small scale (from the > government's perspective), so it will work fine, since it won't be > attacked. This would be good, as it would help individuals who > need help. Freenet 0.5 meets this need too, and would 0.3. WASTE > would probably be better though, as it has much less overhead.
This is simply not true. It is not possible any more to use Freenet 0.5 in China, for the simple reason that it *has been attacked*. The same goes for FreeGate. And I would be surprised if it wasn't also the case for Tor sometime in the next year. Furthermore, the whole point about WASTE is that it does not scale. It cannot scale. It will never scale. The internet is orders of magnitude more useful than a BBS because it DOES scale. > > However, if Freenet grows to match the claim of a "globally scalable > darknet", or maybe even if it just garners enough press for people > to think it does, it would then become worth attacking, and hence, > *less secure* than if it didn't grow. > > =jr -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20051011/74088646/attachment.pgp>
