> - are you people open to the idea of an IRC/XMPP chan or a weblog/gemlog? following from afar (without being on the ML) looks like there's not a lot of activi

> - are you people open to the idea of an IRC/XMPP chan or a weblog/gemlog? following from afar (without being on the ML) looks like there's not a lot of activity, although i can see with my bare eyes the draft spec has evolved a lot Yes, the only reason why there are no posts on the ML and very little posts on the GNUnet news archive is that I do this in my spare time. Now, the draft is mostly(TM) finished. So I do not see a reason for blogging anymore. > how confident are you in your DHT spec/implementation for scalability and security? are other people working on different implementations? is there a testbed one can run scalability checks with? That is a good question. GNUnet is still figuring out the transport layer. Until that is in a state that we are satisfied with, we will conduct performance tests. That being said, looking at other DHT proposals out there we think that R5N (and especially the improvements we have planned) are far superior. It still has strong roots in Kademlia though. > are you actively cooperating with other non-profit projects such as Tor? GNS sounds like it could be the missing piece in such crypto-secure routing schemes without memorable names ; i understand that GNS is part of GNUNet, but i'm asking about other ties/cooperations Yes. I think there was some collaboration here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-grothoff-iesg-special-use-p2p-names-02 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-grothoff-iesg-sp... But we are not in regular contact and tor seems to go their own route. There are, however, similarities: https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/proposals/224-rend-spec-ng.txt#n2135 https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/proposals/224... > - why is it called "hyper hyper" local root? maybe i'm missing some context (despite reading about RFC7706 and froot), but "local root" or "user-editable root" sounds clearer to me As this was confusing, it is removed from the draft. I think you can still find it on some slides when you look for it. In general, what is currently explained in the draft should be correct and there is no need to think about this too hard ;) > - did i faithfully represent the technics/politics of GNS in those posts? if not please let me know so i can avoid to repeat the same mistakes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30155773 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30155773 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30156097 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30156097 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30156175 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30156175 I think so. There seems to be an understandable conflation of the technical means of name resolution (the draft) and the governance issues related to zones and names. Governance of zones (but especially root zone governance) is out of scope of the draft. But it is of major importance for any real world use. > - how can we support GNS and help make it a reality? My usual response would be: Install GNUnet and run a zone. But, we are currently in the process of fixing some major bugs in GNUnet and it is just not yet ready. As you correctly assessed, we are a very small team at the moment.