Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Feb 2012 23:15 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 506474
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
galvanash,
"That is the point I think - not address anonymity. It's not really anything like Freenet, where anonymity is actually the primary goal."
Yes, I was trying to highlight the two different levels of anonymity using freenet as an example. A decentralized P2P network shouldn't be a "darknet" if it's to be scalable. However it's still possible to protect the privacy of the traffic so third parties don't know what's being transfered between known peers.




Member since:
2006-01-25
I'd be interested in hearing anyone else's take on this subject.
Darknets for file sharing are simply trust networks - they are only as trustworthy as the people you let into them. As such, it is all rather pointless to me, since they eventually succumb to their own popularity - once you reach the point that you no longer know everyone you can no longer trust it.
Its fine to a point for a small group of peers who actually do know each other - but then you never really gain the advantages you have with large P2P networks (namely diverse content and multiple seeders to speed up downloads).
Tribler does not seem to even try to behave like a darknet. There is no address anonymity as far as I can see - it is simply decentralized. You would of course need a few "superpeers" to bootstrap things, but once it got going it would be self-maintaining. That is the point I think - not address anonymity. It's not really anything like Freenet, where anonymity is actually the primary goal.