View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0004610 | GNUnet | file-sharing service | public | 2016-08-06 16:41 | 2016-09-24 22:34 |
| Reporter | lynX | Assigned To | lynX | ||
| Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | have not tried |
| Status | closed | Resolution | won't fix | ||
| Product Version | 0.10.0 | ||||
| Target Version | 0.10.0 | Fixed in Version | 0.10.0 | ||
| Summary | 0004610: IPFS-compatible download URIs for GNFS | ||||
| Description | A guest expressed this feature request in the welcome chatroom. He would like to have the UX of IPFS combined with the anonymity features of GNFS, and he would love the two to be compatible so that the same file checksum URI can be used to fetch either via IPFS or GNFS. That implies that he would like gnunet-fs to provide an httpd for gnunet-download operations. | ||||
| Additional Information | I was also asked if GNUnet could provide a nice overview of its architecture as provided by https://github.com/ipfs/specs/tree/master/libp2p. I guess the extensive gnunet documentation and videos actually do so, only that gnunet is a lot more complex and solves some essential problems of P2P applications, making it more than just P2P. In the meantime, Lars Gierth is planning to copycat aspects of cjdns into IPFS, essentially re-inventing the gnunet wheel. https://github.com/ipfs/notes/issues/143 – I'm afraid this propagates old approaches without learning from mistakes as cjdns doesn't address censorship issues like CADET does. http://cdn.media.ccc.de/congress/2013/workshops/30c3-WS-en-YBTI_Mesh-Bart_Polot-GNUnet_Wireless_Mesh_DHT.webm We already know from this debate that cjdns essentially implements a subset of gnunet, but without the necessary defences against attacks: http://cdn.media.ccc.de/congress/2013/workshops/30c3-WS-en-YBTI_Mesh_Routing-Panel-cjdns_freifunk_GNUnet_net2o.webm | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
|
|
From the libp2p spec: "We take both security and performance seriously. We recognize that encryption is not viable for some in-datacenter high performance use cases.". Wow, and they dare to say that in 2016. As for the original request, I don't think this is at all possible, the URIs are fundamentally incompatible. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016-08-06 16:41 | lynX | New Issue | |
| 2016-08-07 13:32 | lynX | Additional Information Updated | |
| 2016-08-07 13:35 | lynX | Additional Information Updated | |
| 2016-08-07 13:41 | lynX | Additional Information Updated | |
| 2016-08-07 13:42 | lynX | Additional Information Updated | |
| 2016-08-07 13:43 | lynX | Additional Information Updated | |
| 2016-08-17 10:51 | Christian Grothoff | Note Added: 0011036 | |
| 2016-08-20 16:51 | lynX | Status | new => resolved |
| 2016-08-20 16:51 | lynX | Fixed in Version | => 0.10.0 |
| 2016-08-20 16:51 | lynX | Resolution | open => won't fix |
| 2016-08-20 16:51 | lynX | Assigned To | => lynX |
| 2016-09-24 22:34 | Christian Grothoff | Status | resolved => closed |
| 2016-09-24 22:34 | Christian Grothoff | Product Version | => 0.10.0 |
| 2016-09-24 22:34 | Christian Grothoff | Target Version | => 0.10.0 |
