3 ms·
> 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
by 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