Re: [tor-talk] tor versus freenet

[grarpamp <grarpamp@xxxxxxxxx>]

> 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 only
files will continue to be available any particular time after injection.

Free Haven and others have done some work towards some sort
of global anon p2p persistant store. It is very hard to do. Whereas
simple organized anon block pools are, well, simple.

I'm aware of one list (any others???) where meta and hacking talk
regarding different anonymous/p2p systems sometimes appears:
p2p-hackers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_P2P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_systems
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_P2P_protocols

> But it is another program you have to install, configure and whatnot.
> I especially opt for integration in Tor to simply the use.

Though Tor, and/or its community contributors, might choose to write a
shim or collaborate on an interface in order interconnect any two
particular protocols (were it even possible), there certainly won't be any
coding of a given protocol clone directly into Tor just to save install.

> 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 uninstall

This is just the most effective response to the typical use case by the
typical masses. It would be wiser to learn how to sandbox any given
application, so that when those applications fail, at least there is another
layer standing in the way.
_______________________________________________
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk