On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 05:41:37PM -0400, jrandom at i2p.net wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > Now, we can dispute all the above figures, but the fact remains, that > > Freenet 0.7/Dark will be far superior to any other scalable > > communications system usable in moderately hostile regimes. > > Looking at it from a practical perspective, something is "scalable" if > it can grow and still work for its users, right? > > By this definition, Freenet/dark does not scale - when it grows, it > will not work for its users, since they will no longer be 'dark', as > you now seem to agree.
No, I do not agree. It will scale. It may be attacked, but systems derived from it will be fairly resistant to attack. It may well be possible to build internet-based systems which don't provide real-time response, but cannot be distinguished from normal traffic except via non-local traffic analysis. But even if it is successfully attacked in some places, it is superior to what is available now, which has also been attacked. It will provide more freedom, more information, to more people, and for longer, than other options available at present. > > There are plenty of more efficient techniques that don't scale, > require less resources, have lower latency, and that work today. > They're not as sexy, but they work. The Chinese know how to build pirate radio stations. The hard part is getting the data to the transmitter untraceably. But if you are talking about proxies etc, they are more vulnerable today than Freenet is. FreeGate is blocked. Freenet 0.5 is blocked. Tor would be very easy to block. As would I2P, and open freenet. If the government cared about open HTTP or SOCKS proxies, they would also be very easy to block (on a packet signatures level). They have already blocked dyndns. As far as I know people in China, Iran etc are not being arrested for circumventing the firewall, proxies do not last long before they are blocked, more survivable tools such as Freenet, Freegate etc are generally blocked at source, and so there is a need for better tools - such as Freenet 0.7/Dark. And IMHO a scalable darknet is FAR more useful than a non-scalable one, as I have explained. > > Researching how to build a stego network while Freenet/light proceeds > is great however. I look forward to some papers describing the > progress. Freenet 0.7/Dark *is* a stego network. It's an experiment - can you build a scalable stego network? Perhaps it's not a very good stegonet, but it may just be the basis of something really cool. > > =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/20051013/f083e6b2/attachment.pgp>
