4 ms·

> True P2P networks don't scale, because every node has to store an (accurate if partial) representation of the whole network Former LimeWire dev here... which

by KMag 3y ago

> True P2P networks don't scale, because every node has to store an (accurate if partial) representation of the whole network Former LimeWire dev here... which P2P networks use a fully meshed topology? LimeWire and other Gnutella clients just have a random mesh with a fixed number of (ultra)peers. If the network gets too large, then your constrained broadcast queries hit their hop count before reaching the edge of the network, but that seems fine. Last I checked, Freenet used a variation on a random mesh. Kademlia's routing tables take O(log(N)) space and traffic per-peer to maintain (so O(N log(N)) for global total network space and traffic). Same for Chord (though, twice as much traffic due to not using a symmetric distance metric like XOR). There are plenty of "True" (non-centralized) P2P networks that aren't fully meshed.

sanity 3y ago
Creator of Freenet here. Freenet[1] relies on peers self-organizing into a small world network[2]. Small world networks have the advantage of being able to find data in log N time where N is the network size, they're also completely decentralized, self-healing, and distribute load evenly across peers. The principle is similar to DHTs like Kademlia but more flexible and intuitive IMO, while having similar scaling characteristics. It's surprisingly common for people to confuse small world networks with "scale free networks", but scale free networks rely on a subset of highly connected peers which do a disproportionate amount of the work - which isn't truly decentralized. The new Freenet design incorporates adaptive learning into the routing algorithm. When a peer is deciding where to route a message, it predicts the response probability and time for each neighboring peer based on past performance and chooses the best. With conventional "greedy routing", peers choose the neighbor with a location closest to the data being retrieved. The new approach is adaptive to actual network performance. [1] Both the original Freenet from 1999 and the new sequel we're currently building - see https://freenet.org/ https://freenet.org/ for more. We hope to launch the network in the next few weeks. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-world_network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-world_network
- KMag 3y ago
  Thanks for the great work, Ian! As far a second-generation Freenet, I heard i2p started out as a proposed re-factoring and generalization of Freenet's encrypted transport layer. Are there any plans on using i2p to carry Freenet traffic?
  - sanity 3y ago
    Thank you :) I2P was created by someone who was previously involved with Freenet, but its design is a lot closer to Tor than to Freenet. Both I2P and Tor are anonymizing proxies, they allow services to be hidden, but they're still centralized. While they are quite different, there is enough overlap that running Freenet over I2P (or Tor) would be wildly inefficient and slow, so I wouldn't recommend it. Freenet is designed to run over UDP directly. The new Freenet is designed to allow the creation of completely decentralized services. Briefly, it's a global key-value store in which keys are webassembly code that specify what values are permitted under that key, and the conditions under which those values can be modified. This key-value store is observable, so anyone can subscribe to a key and be notified immediately if the value changes. This is just scratching the surface, for anyone interested in a much more comprehensive explanation of the new Freenet please see this talk I gave a few months ago: [1] You can also find a FAQ here: [2] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBtyNIqZios https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBtyNIqZios [2] https://freenet.org/faq https://freenet.org/faq
  - babymode 3y ago
    I think ive been following the dev chat long enough to answer that the new freenet is a new, seperate network to the original (now called hyphanet I think) that handles transport by itself, and end to end encryption is not in scope of the project but can be built on top
    - sanity 3y ago
      > the new freenet is a new, seperate network to the original This is correct - while old and new Freenet both rely on a small-world network, they are very different and not compatible. Borrowing from our FAQ[1], the main differences are: Functionality: The previous version of Freenet (now called Hyphanet) was analogous to a decentralized hard drive, while the current version is analogous to a full decentralized computer. Real-time Interaction: The current version allows users to subscribe to data and be notified immediately if it changes. This is essential for systems like instant messaging or group chat. Programming Language: Unlike the previous version, which was developed in Java, the current Freenet is implemented in Rust. This allows for better efficiency and integration into a wide variety of platforms (Windows, Mac, Android, MacOS, etc). Transparency: The current version is a drop-in replacement for the world wide web and is just as easy to use. Anonymity: While the previous version was designed with a focus on anonymity, the current version does not offer built-in anonymity but allows for a choice of anonymizing systems to be layered on top. [1] https://freenet.org/faq#faq-2 https://freenet.org/faq#faq-2
pphysch 3y ago
Sure, but ultrapeers/supernodes/routers/etc are forms of centralization. Locally, the network is centralized around these supernodes, and they can be annoying/impossible to bypass. The "inner network" or backbone of supernodes, if exists, can also represent a central authority. Nothing necessarily wrong with any of this, but it can stretch the meaning of P2P if it really means P2central-authority2P. Functionally there is almost no difference between me sending you an (anonymous, encrypted) message over Facebook versus over some sophisticated, large, hierarchical "P2P" network. We still have to trust the local authorities, so to speak.
- KMag 3y ago
  How are Gnutella ultrapeers centralized? Nodes self-promote themselves to ultrapeers if they meet uptime and resource availability requirements. It's a mechanism to allow low-spec'd peers to participate without getting crushed with traffic, and also an optimization to reduce churn in the routing tables. The ultrapeers are just long-uptime regular peers.

by KMag 3y ago

sanity 3y ago

Creator of Freenet here. Freenet[1] relies on peers self-organizing into a small world network[2]. Small world networks have the advantage of being able to find data in log N time where N is the network size, they're also completely decentralized, self-healing, and distribute load evenly across peers. The principle is similar to DHTs like Kademlia but more flexible and intuitive IMO, while having similar scaling characteristics. It's surprisingly common for people to confuse small world networks with "scale free networks", but scale free networks rely on a subset of highly connected peers which do a disproportionate amount of the work - which isn't truly decentralized. The new Freenet design incorporates adaptive learning into the routing algorithm. When a peer is deciding where to route a message, it predicts the response probability and time for each neighboring peer based on past performance and chooses the best. With conventional "greedy routing", peers choose the neighbor with a location closest to the data being retrieved. The new approach is adaptive to actual network performance. [1] Both the original Freenet from 1999 and the new sequel we're currently building - see https://freenet.org/ https://freenet.org/ for more. We hope to launch the network in the next few weeks. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-world_network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small-world_network

KMag 3y ago
Thanks for the great work, Ian! As far a second-generation Freenet, I heard i2p started out as a proposed re-factoring and generalization of Freenet's encrypted transport layer. Are there any plans on using i2p to carry Freenet traffic?
- sanity 3y ago
  Thank you :) I2P was created by someone who was previously involved with Freenet, but its design is a lot closer to Tor than to Freenet. Both I2P and Tor are anonymizing proxies, they allow services to be hidden, but they're still centralized. While they are quite different, there is enough overlap that running Freenet over I2P (or Tor) would be wildly inefficient and slow, so I wouldn't recommend it. Freenet is designed to run over UDP directly. The new Freenet is designed to allow the creation of completely decentralized services. Briefly, it's a global key-value store in which keys are webassembly code that specify what values are permitted under that key, and the conditions under which those values can be modified. This key-value store is observable, so anyone can subscribe to a key and be notified immediately if the value changes. This is just scratching the surface, for anyone interested in a much more comprehensive explanation of the new Freenet please see this talk I gave a few months ago: [1] You can also find a FAQ here: [2] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBtyNIqZios https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBtyNIqZios [2] https://freenet.org/faq https://freenet.org/faq
- babymode 3y ago
  I think ive been following the dev chat long enough to answer that the new freenet is a new, seperate network to the original (now called hyphanet I think) that handles transport by itself, and end to end encryption is not in scope of the project but can be built on top
  - sanity 3y ago
    > the new freenet is a new, seperate network to the original This is correct - while old and new Freenet both rely on a small-world network, they are very different and not compatible. Borrowing from our FAQ[1], the main differences are: Functionality: The previous version of Freenet (now called Hyphanet) was analogous to a decentralized hard drive, while the current version is analogous to a full decentralized computer. Real-time Interaction: The current version allows users to subscribe to data and be notified immediately if it changes. This is essential for systems like instant messaging or group chat. Programming Language: Unlike the previous version, which was developed in Java, the current Freenet is implemented in Rust. This allows for better efficiency and integration into a wide variety of platforms (Windows, Mac, Android, MacOS, etc). Transparency: The current version is a drop-in replacement for the world wide web and is just as easy to use. Anonymity: While the previous version was designed with a focus on anonymity, the current version does not offer built-in anonymity but allows for a choice of anonymizing systems to be layered on top. [1] https://freenet.org/faq#faq-2 https://freenet.org/faq#faq-2

pphysch 3y ago

Sure, but ultrapeers/supernodes/routers/etc are forms of centralization. Locally, the network is centralized around these supernodes, and they can be annoying/impossible to bypass. The "inner network" or backbone of supernodes, if exists, can also represent a central authority. Nothing necessarily wrong with any of this, but it can stretch the meaning of P2P if it really means P2central-authority2P. Functionally there is almost no difference between me sending you an (anonymous, encrypted) message over Facebook versus over some sophisticated, large, hierarchical "P2P" network. We still have to trust the local authorities, so to speak.

KMag 3y ago
How are Gnutella ultrapeers centralized? Nodes self-promote themselves to ultrapeers if they meet uptime and resource availability requirements. It's a mechanism to allow low-spec'd peers to participate without getting crushed with traffic, and also an optimization to reduce churn in the routing tables. The ultrapeers are just long-uptime regular peers.