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

211–220 of 302 posts

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

#211

Post by 16bitvoid »

sanity wrote: post #169
16bitvoid wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Community size and positive community feedback, which is somewhat tangential to progress, which I assume is in the context of development. Also, the rate at which the original freenet community declines. Number of contributors or pull requests isn't a good metric at the moment since the advent of Claude Code et al. has seen a dramatic uptick in both everywhere.

How is it tangential? Technical success is the primary driver of community growth, adoption, and long-term viability. The more it can do, and the better it does it, the more people will use it.

Community growth might imply technical success (debatable), but technical success does not imply community growth.

You can have a very technically successful project, but it doesn't mean it'll be used.

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

#212

Post by DANmode »

koolba wrote: post #101
pikdum wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s not how contributing money to the success of a specific thing should be able to work at all.

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

#213

Post by DANmode »

qcl820DV34 wrote: post #22
sanity wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Notably this project was conceived by a backroom decision to dump the original Freenet development team's work, This is a false narrative, from the Freenet FAQ[1]: Why was Freenet rearchitected and rebranded? In 2019, Ian began developing a successor to the original Freenet, internally named “Locutus.” This redesign was a ground-up reimagining, incorporating lessons learned from the original Freenet and addressing…

> 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…

A correction, based on the text as written:

they were saying they debated with themselves,

before making the decision.

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

#214

Post by sanity »

cynicalkane wrote: post #208
sanity wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the use of a single phrase in an obscure three year old mailing list post is enough to make you dismiss someone entirely, that probably says more about you than it does about me.

> "If you think a specific statement was wrong, harmful, or dishonest, then explain why" > someone picks a specific statement > "If the use of a single phrase... is enough to make you dismiss someone entirely" Bro, you asked for a specific statement. Was GP actually supposed to provide N specific statements, where N is a hidden number known only to you?

How was that "wrong, harmful, or dishonest" - specifically?

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

#215

Post by sanity »

16bitvoid wrote: post #211
sanity wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it tangential? Technical success is the primary driver of community growth, adoption, and long-term viability. The more it can do, and the better it does it, the more people will use it.

Community growth might imply technical success (debatable), but technical success does not imply community growth. You can have a very technically successful project, but it doesn't mean it'll be used.

[dead]

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

#216

Post by DANmode »

tardedmeme wrote: post #172
sanity wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd be surprised how mainstream these views are outside certain bubbles.

inside other bubbles. Why do you get to bypass the HN global rate limit?

Probably manually lifted.

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

#217

Post by DANmode »

foobarian wrote: post #108
kstrauser wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

“crunchier”?

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

#218

Post by sanity »

mhitza wrote: post #204

What are the current limitation of this system? Slow bootstrapping, high latency, large disk usage? Is there a solution, or ideas, for DNS equivalents? I know the I2P approach (and remember that GNUNet had some unique approach as well), which can be workable in practice with "trusted registrars" as jump hosts. Name resolution feel even more important to solve in decentralized web. How can anonymity be built on top of…

> What are the current limitation of this system? Slow bootstrapping, high latency, large disk usage?

I'd say not working on mobile is probably the main one right now. Peers bootstrap into the network in seconds typically, and contract updates typically arrive at subscribed peers in under 2 seconds which was the design goal. The Freenet binary is just 10MB, and disk usage is fairly minimal as even the largest contracts are > Is there a solution, or ideas, for DNS equivalents? I know the I2P approach (and remember that GNUNet had some unique approach as well), which can be workable in practice with "trusted registrars" as jump hosts. Name resolution feel even more important to solve in decentralized web.

Contracts in Freenet are identified by a hash of the contract webassembly + contract parameters - so the contract's identity is tied to its function. This is effectively a generalization of Freenet's "Signed-Subspace Keys" - which were also adopted by GNUnet.

> How can anonymity be built on top of this system?

Most likely through a mixnet or onion routing built on Freenet's contracts and delegates. If you don't mind listening to videos this was discussed in depth on a recent Freenet podcast[1].

[1] https://youtu.be/sfdsljrnJiI?si=tTs2qNglrYJOImn2

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

#219

Post by SuperNinKenDo »

tardedmeme wrote: post #171
kstrauser wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why is it always people like this who run projects that should be good? SimpleX, Xlibre, Freenet Locutus, that's three, and I'm sure there are more. Edit: do they all like the letter X, too? I think in this list it's just a coincidence, but maybe? Edit because I can't post a new comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46608061

Disagreeable, passionate people are passionate about doing projects that go against the grain. It's really obvious to anybody actually asking the question instead of just being rhetorical and not giving it any actual thought. The answer is a commpetely obvious one, but one which makes some people uncomfortable, such that they'd rather not confront it, lest they have to confront its implications.

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

#220

Post by LoganDark »

tardedmeme wrote: post #174
Gigachad wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hard part imo was not being exposed to, or unknowingly redistributing illegal content. They claim this new freenet solves this but the details on how weren't super clear.

Every Tor relay redistributes CSAM daily, but nobody gets busted for running a Tor relay.

> nobody gets busted for running a Tor relay.

Citation needed? IIRC, the general advice for running a Tor relay is "don't, unless you want an endless supply of abuse complaints". So you'd require a jurisdiction that ignores abuse complaints.

Post reply on HN