[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [tor-talk] Possibly Smart, Possibly Stupid, Idea Regarding Tor & Linux Distributions

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Alec Muffett <alec.muffett@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 4 January 2017 at 19:39, grarpamp <grarpamp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > But me, I want to get _everybody_ - teachers, journalists, kids,
>> everyone.
>> Absolutely. Same for whatever functions other overlay networks are
>> good at too. Yet at least with tor, how will that happen when it is
>> restricted to strictly TCP and onion addressing?
> Answer: "incrementally".
> We're are not, and I think should not, attempt to replace the internet.
> Just augment it.  Add value.  Make it more interesting, diverse and fun.

Replacement would require knowledge interest support and participation
in individually owned and p2p connected guerrilla networking by the masses.
So shall we physically say till then (excepting local community versions
of that) we attempt to use internet overlays instead, of which CJDNS,
I2P etc may be an example.
Then we think of not replacing the internet but replicating it.
There is codewise replication, ie: dotted quad / IP, C / Java, ...
And functional replication, ie: categories of uses / cases
and analogs... messaging, storage, publication, etc.

> Just augment it.  Add value.  Make it more interesting, diverse and fun.

Yes codewise is not required. Yet to achieve this, functional may
likely be required. Then what do your code choices limit there?
What is one person's value, interest, diverse, fun? Same as another's?
And how do you scale it when even one fun app becomes a hit.
Tor probably can't support a Candy Crush worth of users.
So do you purposefully limit it, nullifying the "_everybody_" goal?

The augmentation and v.i.d.f. are surely beginning to be present.
And will continue to happen as overlay networks progress :)

tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to