I believe it is 100% feasible to create a decentralised, secure network for static content - i.e. static sites. Combined with powerful (and secure) client-side APIs we are on a good track to success. I am not sure what this is but I am sure going to give it a try.
Curious about using Tor for anonymity. Tor explicitly asks users not to use it for bittorrent for many reasons. So if I have a ZeroNet site serving a nice big video over bittorrent, does my visitors' using Tor for anonymity go against their best practices?
ZeroNet doesn't use bittorrent for file transfers. The bittorrent network is only used for the DHT to map site addresses to IP addresses (or TOR hidden service names).
File transfer is done over a service that ZeroNet runs on a particular port with its own protocol.
Sorry I have not investigated deeper myself, but does this service still preserve sender/receiver anonymity? A link about it would be just fine, thanks.
I'm following the developement of zeronet for the past 3 years. I'm not convinced that it is the final solution to the decentralized internet. A main thing that bothers me is the insane lookup-time for site with a low distribution. The same problem occurs with ipfs btw. It takes up to one minute to find a the correct node when only one node hast the content-hash.
Does anyone else see it as an issue that the decentralized website solution to databases is to create a copy of a SQLite database on every user's machine?
Just a minor correction: if you provide a stable API for querying the database, you can ignore the technological details on the caller side, the website.
> The two systems also have a number of differences. Dat keeps a secure version log of changes to a dataset over time which allows Dat to act as a version control tool. The type of Merkle tree used by Dat lets peers compare which pieces of a specific version of a dataset they each have and efficiently exchange the deltas to complete a full sync. It is not possible to synchronize or version a dataset in this way in IPFS without implementing such functionality yourself, as IPFS provides a CDN and/or filesystem interface but not a synchronization mechanism.
PouchDB is great! But it doesn't offer a discovery mechanism. Dat is solution that offers this but uses a similar log based system for distributing changes.
Are there any discussions on this about ethereum? As more and more smart contracts are deployed the space needed to hold the blockchain will grow way faster than bitcoin.
Last time I used that project I was trying to migrate my wordpress to zeroNet and I failed because my wp-content/images is over 3Gb and ZeroNet website is (was?) limited to 100Mb. Has this changed, are they tools that migrate images to separate addresses and link them correctly in html files?
ZeroNet is better at dealing with such sites now but it's still problematic when a site grows past a threshold where requestors need to be prompted to increase the size. Nodes that are just seeding don't automatically seed the changed site since they don't respond to the size change request.
One way of dealing with it is to make the images "Optional content". This means they are not sent to requestors of the site immediately - they are requested only when specifically wanted. Users can choose to seed optional files - in which case they'll mirror them all - or they only seed the ones they've looked at. Optional files don't count towards site size limits.
By putting an SQLite database file (.db) inside a torrent, we can query its content -- by prioritizing pieces based on the SQL query -- and quickly peek at the content of the database without downloading it entirely.
If you are interested in this, you might be interested in Archain (https://www.archain.org/) - a different solution to a decentralised sister internet.
You might never have been censored, but then you likely never said much that would upset powerful people. But you live in a society that is rich and (mostly) free because others have done so.
All sites that viewed an existing site contain a copy of it and share the data. There is a "thundering herd" problem of multiple requesters for the site initially being distributed but once that's done then multiple nodes will have it and can seed it. The original site shutting down is no problem at that point.
IPFS shares the same problem and knowing when it's safe to shut down a node in both IPFS and ZeroNet is difficult.
Freenet solves this by having an insert of data sent directly to peers immediately. The site isn't stored on the inserting node. Once the insert is done it's safe to close the node and the content is still available.
oh man, i hate those software that automatically try to guess the user language! even more annoying when it chooses the wrong language for you. in my case PT (Portugal) instead of PT-BR.
This is the inception of the future. If this develops in the proper direction; this will be the restoration of liberty in the online citizen's social media.
I don't know whether it is banned there or not, but when you join ZeroMe (zeronet's decentralized twitter) you quickly realized how it's populated with chinese sites and profiles
There is a challenge of balance which exists between the two extremes of reliable and censorship resistant infrastructure and responsible and balanced control of the information published on it, as it relates to the health of a group of citizens. For good or bad, the censorship resistant infrastructure piece is coming at us like a freight train in a variety of ways. What is currently needed is a balance in the way we implement the infrastructure such that some information may be segregated from the greater population using variable value assessment.
The logic goes, if some information is more valuable shared privately, then the infrastructure should make it harder to access. Conversely, if some information is more valuable shared publicly, the infrastructure should make it easier to access.
To do this effectively/efficiently, information must become a market commodity and have a means by which the value to access it is governed by the consensus of the viewers. This is made difficult given information may be easily copied by individuals and the current state of affairs with sharing things over social media and the problems with group think.
I would note that "hate groups" are groups who focus on removing choice for others by way of introducing thoughts and ideas which act in a viral manner in the population. Double binds are one form of passive coercion which have made a reappearance within the (cheap) available social media offerings.
Do you believe hate has ever been truly silenced at any point in history? Would you prefer to not know it exists and what it is saying to other people?
It's a possible problem sure but the same issue exists in anything that protects privacy and aims to prevent state censorship. E2E encryption protects activists but can also be used by criminals. Tor provides routes around censorship in repressive countries but there's some really nasty stuff hosted on it's anonymous web. There's no way to design a tool like this that can distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' uses of itself.
ZeroNet does not pay you for hosting. Maidsafe is more file storage, ZeroNet is more about distributed site sharing. ZeroNet could be implemented on top of Maidsafe but not vice versa. There's also the fact that ZeroNet works today, has been working for a year or two, whereas Maidsafe is still in test stages.
FreeNet is a distributed key/value store. It can be used to store files by storing the contents of the file under a key that is the hash of the file content. Generally you operate on Freenet at the level of keys and values.
ZeroNet operates at the level of sites. Sites contain multiple files. Seeding of data happens at the site level.
You could implement ZeroNet on top of Freenet but implementing Freenet on top of ZeroNet wouldn't make much sense.
When inserting new data, Freenet pushes data out to nodes. ZeroNet pulls data from requestors. With Zeronet you can't disconnect your node until other nodes have a complete copy if you want the data to remain available. It is difficult to tell when it is safe to do this. With Freenet the data isn't stored on your own node, it is pushed out to other nodes when first inserting. When the insert completes you know you can safely turn off your node. The data remains available.
78 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 124 ms ] threadFile transfer is done over a service that ZeroNet runs on a particular port with its own protocol.
Every time there's a change to the db you need to download a whole new copy afaik.
Ideally you'd use a log based store. To do this you need to fundamentally change your idea for how a website works.
With a distributed log store chances are you won't have the same data as another person.
https://docs.datproject.org/faq - https://beakerbrowser.com/ - https://github.com/bunsenbrowser/bunsen
This is the first issue that must be resolved I'm.
> The two systems also have a number of differences. Dat keeps a secure version log of changes to a dataset over time which allows Dat to act as a version control tool. The type of Merkle tree used by Dat lets peers compare which pieces of a specific version of a dataset they each have and efficiently exchange the deltas to complete a full sync. It is not possible to synchronize or version a dataset in this way in IPFS without implementing such functionality yourself, as IPFS provides a CDN and/or filesystem interface but not a synchronization mechanism.
Above quote is from "How is Dat different than IPFS?" https://docs.datproject.org/faq
The Dat web can be browsed on Desktop with Beaker Browser https://beakerbrowser.com or on Android with Bunsen Browser https://github.com/bunsenbrowser/bunsen.
* Disclaimer: I'm helping out with the development of Bunsen. You should too!
One way of dealing with it is to make the images "Optional content". This means they are not sent to requestors of the site immediately - they are requested only when specifically wanted. Users can choose to seed optional files - in which case they'll mirror them all - or they only seed the ones they've looked at. Optional files don't count towards site size limits.
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/economy/article/2113521/n...
https://blockstack.org/
I guess there's a lot of opaquenets already, and it's not the feature richest, but this one you can have running in under five minutes.
I was actually using it for some torrents but currently ZeroTV is down :(
By putting an SQLite database file (.db) inside a torrent, we can query its content -- by prioritizing pieces based on the SQL query -- and quickly peek at the content of the database without downloading it entirely.
All the stated benefits are non-issues for me:
* Uncensored
I never been censored.
* No hosting costs
I serve hundreds of thousands of users per month for something like $20.
* Always accessible
Just like hosting costs, my downtime is negligible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
Have you never self-censored?
You might never have been censored, but then you likely never said much that would upset powerful people. But you live in a society that is rich and (mostly) free because others have done so.
IPFS shares the same problem and knowing when it's safe to shut down a node in both IPFS and ZeroNet is difficult.
Freenet solves this by having an insert of data sent directly to peers immediately. The site isn't stored on the inserting node. Once the insert is done it's safe to close the node and the content is still available.
https://blog.adguard.com/en/ad-blocking-is-under-attack/
argh.
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/economy/article/2113521/n...
The logic goes, if some information is more valuable shared privately, then the infrastructure should make it harder to access. Conversely, if some information is more valuable shared publicly, the infrastructure should make it easier to access.
To do this effectively/efficiently, information must become a market commodity and have a means by which the value to access it is governed by the consensus of the viewers. This is made difficult given information may be easily copied by individuals and the current state of affairs with sharing things over social media and the problems with group think.
I would note that "hate groups" are groups who focus on removing choice for others by way of introducing thoughts and ideas which act in a viral manner in the population. Double binds are one form of passive coercion which have made a reappearance within the (cheap) available social media offerings.
https://thecedrus.com/tag/lovequotes
ZeroNet operates at the level of sites. Sites contain multiple files. Seeding of data happens at the site level.
You could implement ZeroNet on top of Freenet but implementing Freenet on top of ZeroNet wouldn't make much sense.
When inserting new data, Freenet pushes data out to nodes. ZeroNet pulls data from requestors. With Zeronet you can't disconnect your node until other nodes have a complete copy if you want the data to remain available. It is difficult to tell when it is safe to do this. With Freenet the data isn't stored on your own node, it is pushed out to other nodes when first inserting. When the insert completes you know you can safely turn off your node. The data remains available.