Re: [GNUnet-developers] IPFS similar project competing rather than helping

[John Luke Gibson]

On 4/20/17, Christian Grothoff <address@hidden> wrote:
> I don't recall seeing anything that would suggest that the IPFS project
> is concerned with privacy/anonymity (beyond "use Tor"), and furthermore,
> their use of a (public) block chain for naming entities also suggests
> that IPFS is not suitable for private data.
>
> I'm not saying that they are doing anything "wrong", but it seems some
> of the high-level goals or priorities are different, as are some of the
> methods they use. Hence, I would not consider them a rip-off.

On 4/20/17, Louis Pearson <address@hidden> wrote:
> I am no expert, but I doubt they are trying to rip off gnunet. From
> what I recall, what they are trying to make a more permanent, as in less
> dead links and so on. From what I've read on the secushare website,
> gnunet is more aimed at decentralization. I could, of course, be
> completely wrong, but nothing seemed off about IPFS when I was looking
> at it awhile ago.

IPFS's concept of multi-hash and multi-[etc] file formats could help
in making GNUnet less esoteric. More explicit binary could also help.
Documenting in binary rather than pseudo-code should give contributors
cause to justify complexity before adding it. The more complex GNUnet
is the more difficult it would be to audit. The worst
antt-security/anti-freedom'anti-feature attribute to have.