4 ms·
Freenet still does a lot of things better than Tor. For example, no server is involved so there's nothing to attack or track down, making anonymity guarantees s
by shittyadmin 8y ago
Freenet still does a lot of things better than Tor. For example, no server is involved so there's nothing to attack or track down, making anonymity guarantees seem to be much better. Yet they've still managed to pull off some forms of interactive communications.
IPFS is closer really, but doesn't move in an anonymity friendly direction at all.
- mirimir 8y ago> For example, no server is involved so there's nothing to attack or track down, making anonymity guarantees seem to be much better. Not really "no server". I mean, Freenet users collectively are the servers. As in BitTorrent, I2P and IPFS. What Freenet does better than Tor is keep content available, even if the provider goes away. As long as it's popular content, that is. Although Tor .onion services are perhaps harder to find, once they're gone, they're usually just gone. There are exceptions, of course, such as the The Hidden Wiki. But any mirroring that happens is entirely ad hoc. In Freenet, it's automatic.
- shittyadmin 8y agoThe point is, Tor relies on establishing a connection with a server which will provide content, Freenet simply distributes data and that data can come from any client/server on the network, Tor's hidden services are modeled off the traditional client server model, while Freenet operates more like a P2P network. That difference in model is what provides a potential anonymity benefit as there's no longer a path to the origin of the content
- rayvy 8y agoIPFS is indeed more similar. Tor is more of a compliment to a DFS such as Freenet (though Tor can very much works as a DFS itself)