3 ms·
Last I read about it the performance was directly linked to the size of the network. In Freenet, if I remember correctly, larger number of nodes with the same c
by klibertp 13y ago
Last I read about it the performance was directly linked to the size of the network. In Freenet, if I remember correctly, larger number of nodes with the same content is proportional to the speed of the content download. And the content spreads to other nodes automatically, so if the network is big and demand for the content is big the content becomes very quickly downloadable (it's both "near" in terms of hops between nodes and there are more nodes with better bandwidth).
So I think that such networks will be niche until enough governments try to censor internet at once. This will make enough people interested in networks like Freenet to make their performance ok. I would like for Freenet to be adopted much faster and on a greater scale without some cataclysm for free speech, but it doesn't look like it's possible :(
- orbitur 13y agoSo, for the uninformed like me, this is a more anonymous form of torrents?
- toyg 13y agoNot really. The emphasis in freenet is on crypto and anonymous distribution / plausible deniability, not moving huge amounts of data. What parent says is that content gets easier to reach with more nodes compared to average FN content, not that it will (likely ever) be faster to download than with BT or similar.
- klibertp 13y agoRight, but in the best case (the content is stored on all neighboring nodes in FN) the only speed difference would be in crypto algorithms used and protocol peculiarities (handshakes, key exchange or something like this). I think? I mean, if the content is not further than one hop, the Freenet functions very similarly to torrent. Or am I mistaken?
- toyg 13y agoThose "protocol peculiarities" are massive performance hogs.
- klibertp 13y agoMore like torrent network where everyone uses TOR, I think.