Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Freenet, a peer-to-peer platform for decentralized apps

freenet.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 302 posts

Re: Show HN: Freenet, a peer-to-peer platform for decentralized apps

#101

Post by koolba »

pikdum wrote: post #58
qcl820DV34 wrote: post #16

Notably this project was conceived by a backroom decision to dump the original Freenet development team's work, in favor of a rewrite from different developers, without asking anyone on the original team. It was an ivory tower decision which was announced on the mailing list without prior discussion. The old team did not agree, yet it was forced through by a decision of the "board". The "board" was a group of people…

Yeah, I'm not a fan. Feels like this project is trying to get popular off of Freenet's name recognition rather than its own merits.

The submitter is the creator of the original Freenet. If anybody gets to decide what we will call Freenet, it’s him.

Re: Show HN: Freenet, a peer-to-peer platform for decentralized apps

#103

Post by koolba »

sanity wrote: post #43
mweidner wrote: post #40

For values that don't have a natural merge function (or where you don't want to bother writing one), would it make sense to sync update logs instead? That is: - The synced value is a history of client updates, sorted in some eventually consistent order (e.g. by hybrid logical clocks). Merging takes the union of the update sets. - The user-visible value is the result of processing these updates in order, using arbitra…

> For values that don't have a natural merge function (or where you don't want to bother writing one), would it make sense to sync update logs instead? Yes, in fact you can implement this within the current framework, for example with our group chat River, each room state maintains a list of the N most recent messages sorted by (approximate) timestamp. The idea is that you can adapt the merge logic to the needs of th…

How does it work in practice? Is it sorted by timestamp and content hash for uniqueness?

Re: Show HN: Freenet, a peer-to-peer platform for decentralized apps

#104

Post by sanity »

koolba wrote: post #103
sanity wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For values that don't have a natural merge function (or where you don't want to bother writing one), would it make sense to sync update logs instead? Yes, in fact you can implement this within the current framework, for example with our group chat River, each room state maintains a list of the N most recent messages sorted by (approximate) timestamp. The idea is that you can adapt the merge logic to the needs of th…

How does it work in practice? Is it sorted by timestamp and content hash for uniqueness?

Messages in river are sorted by timestamp using a (non-cryptographic) hash of the message signature as tie-breaker, essentially a content hash.

One weakness is that we trust the message author to provide an accurate message timestamp, however bad behavior such as manipulating timestamps can be addressed by banning the user from the room.

Re: Show HN: Freenet, a peer-to-peer platform for decentralized apps

#108

Post by foobarian »

kstrauser wrote: post #76
qcl820DV34 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and after over a year of debate There was no "year of debate". You came to the mailing list and announced it for the first time as a finalized decision already, without any prior debate with the original team. The "board" you cited as the body which allegedly discussed it did neither join the mailing list discussion, nor were you willing to hand out their contact info. It's all public for anyone to see on the maili…

WTF. These are some of the first things I clicked through on that page: - https://www.mail-archive.com/devl@freenetproject.org/msg5534... - https://www.mail-archive.com/devl@freenetproject.org/msg5534... Gee, I can't imagine how that mailing list could ever be toxic.

Lol. It's like Linus but crunchier

Re: Show HN: Freenet, a peer-to-peer platform for decentralized apps

#109

Post by Forgeties79 »

qcl820DV34 wrote: post #18
nightpool wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very glad to hear that—the anonymity of the original Freenet has led to it being a very unsavory place that was more well known for CSAM then anything positive or useful. As an outsider, it sounds like this new direction is the right choice for Freenet to try and attract new users and fulfill the team's original goals.

Extremely depraved things are not the only thing to use freedom of speech for, and freely speaking can result in all kinds of repressions. And even without agreeing on whether people should be anonymous on the Internet, it could be agreed that replacing a software which guards against a certain threat model (repressions) with one which does not, without changing the name, is not exactly a wise decision.

> Extremely depraved things are not the only thing to use freedom of speech for

I’m not a fan of “think of the children“ arguments but the Internet cannot actually be a complete free for all and “freedom of speech” is not some magic shield that overrides all other ethical considerations. CSAM is not a particularly high bar and frankly if you want people to throw in with you then you can’t brush it off so lightly.

Post reply on HN