[Freedombox-discuss] Distributed Naming BOF Questions
On 08/04/2011 04:50 PM, ya knygar wrote:
>> yes, any sort of FBX proposal that entirely drops support for existing
>> DNS is going to have very poor adoption rates. We shouldn't shoot
>> ourselves in the foot like that. However, we should also provide
>> mechanisms for people to participate in a naming scheme that is more
>> resistant to powerful/centralized attack, if possible.
> i think - providing the decentralized distributed social networks with FBX,
> along with hosting service, would dramatically increase the use of these
> possible domain networks. FBX's could be the routers to some kind of
> "othernets" and should be, i think. If users of FBX's, fbx'd OS's etc. could
> receive the fast and reliable method to use these "freenets" with their
> hardware and/or software -- interest in that "freenet", combined with eventual
> possibilities of free video-calling, and other highly possible
> wireless benefits,
> - could eventually become the key reasons for potential users.
Yep. Right on. That's the business plan. :)
> i think - the experienced TAC members could propose the definition for
> some "freenet"
> and enlist the benefits. Among these mentions of darknets - i'v seen -
> people have mentioned
> the essential idea of "other Internet", not like a particular solution.
Let's not hold the TAC up as the end all/be all. We are all equal on
this list.
>
>> it would also
>> be silly to make a device that just feeds your personal data and
>> relationship information back into the same centralized social
>> gatekeepers many of us are currently subject to.
> +1
Mmhmm.
-Charles Wyble (who is about 40 hours away from releasing the
FreedomNode reference implementation). Hope everyone else is hacking
away....
Reply to: