-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > 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*. True, you're right. It has had some level of attack - the website was blocked a few years back, and (recently?) the fixed protocol bytes were included in the network filter. Once the transport is fixed to prevent that trivial level of detection, 0.5 would be sufficient. > 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. Not everything has to scale to be useful. Helping 50 people is better than helping none. And as I said in other emails, scaling in this case may in fact be counterproductive, as it changes the economics and invites more powerful attacks. =jr -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDS9D/WYfZ3rPnHH0RAsyEAJ4pO04ozZmE2SksXCLDlpBwqHz/6ACfe554 0GHw1z/FOCKqIOssosZHwTg= =1yf2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
