Hacker News Reader

Comment by 1010101111001 | Hacker News Reader

I think it comes down to what the goals are.

If the goal is to connect peer to peer with a small group of people you know in person and can trust, I see great potential. People congregate in small groups. Facebook friends, Skype contacts, etc. The advantage here is that third parties like Facebook, Microsoft and a gazillion advertisers are not involved. If it's small like that, it's doable as an overlay without using wireless as long as at least one person has a reachable IP and can act as the keeper of everyone else's address info.

If the goal is to create some sort of www replacement that must scale to global internet sizes, where any stranger can connect, and where kids are allowed to do all the things they're not allowed to do legally on the www, I see big problems.

View on HN

>and where kids are allowed to do all the things they're not allowed to do legally on the www, I see big problems.

How in the seven hells is this a problem of the network protocol? Or any other technology, really? I seriously don't want to take this offtopic, but what you are describing is a problem of the parents/guardians first and foremost, and has absolutely nada to do with the technology we are discussing.

Appeals to emotion like this and the sad truth that they work so well are the exact reason we need decentralized, censorship-resistant networks in the first place. To put it polemically: No, I don't want to "think of the children" because that's the job of their goddamn parents.

Not protocols, but usage. Not emotion, but common sense.

If Skype, a peer to peer network that uses a proprietary protocol and third party servers (neither of which is a prerequisite for a peer to peer network), was used primarily for file sharing over encrypted links, they would have some "big problems", as in "heavily funded lobbyists and plaintiffs", to deal with. These are the same "big problems" that are the driving force behind SOPA and consequently the same ones that have injected some steam into this reddit "think tank". SOPA has some interesting language where it refers to "or any successor protocol". Perhaps the next revision, or the next bill of this nature, will include language that refers to "any internetwork", present or future.

How a peer to peer network is used and who uses it does make a difference in terms of its acceptance and survival, even if in theory it shouldn't.

Here is a distinction I've been trying to make clear over the past couple of days.

While our "vision" of the absolute end goal sounds slightly more like the second, our actual goals are to produce the first. This is a much more realistic plan than our vision, and is what the project really aims to do. The vision just aims to bring everyone together about a set of issues that have been very much discussed in recent times.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com