-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > >Well, my stock answer is that I2P is harvestable, and this is the > > >fundamental problem that we seek to rectify. > > > >Hrm, but for the reason's we've discussed over this epic thread, > >your stock answer is not correct. I2P's restricted route topology > >isn't something new, its been on the roadmap as I2P 2.0 for the > >past 2 years. You need a new stock answer ;) > > I tried to find more info on your restricted routes approach, and > from what I can gather, I2P would collapse if any more than a small > subset of the network elected to use restricted routes. In contrast, > Freenet 0.7 should happily deal with a case where 100% of the peers > linked exclusively to trusted peers. > > As such, it is rather disingenuous to argue that I2P is not > harvestable just because a small subset of the peers in the network > can remain hidden, the vast majority of the peers in I2P will and > indeed, must remain harvestable for the network to work.
That is a neat characteristic, and that does help clarify Freenet's position - that it is striving to offer a hidden network that will operate on small to medium scales in countries disconnected from the Internet, or in a post-apocolyptic world where there is no more West. For everything else we've been discussing, I2P suffices, and (arguably) performs better. But performance and efficiency is something I'm sure we'll discuss more about later, as I know you disagree. In any case, its 'cheaper', as it already exists, and additional things that a censorship resistant content distribution network needs could be provided by Freenet, simply reusing the anonymous communication layer offered by I2P. Competition is fine, but cooperation better. =jr -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDT7mIWYfZ3rPnHH0RAj74AJ9jvQ7G5p6GdxrliWdtEkCi/kZ3bwCfS5PO 5exHcw0+KddoHBwwqY0rYs8= =gCI3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
