Re: Gnunet and TUDelft ipv8

[Lluís Batlle i Rossell]

Ok I take as "noone in the gnunet mailing list ever heard of ivp8".
Christian, didn't you either?

https://github.com/Tribler/tribler/wiki
https://py-ipv8.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pouwelse-trustchain-01
http://pure.tudelft.nl/ws/files/41225519/article.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167739X17318988

Thank you,
Lluís.

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 01:07:29PM +0200, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> IPv8 provides "overlays" over internet, which are isolated networks with
> its own addressing based public key identities and not rented IP
> addresses. They also accomodate for some anonymity with onion routing.
> 
> Multiple overlays can coexist in an application to achieve a service,
> where multiple identities serve different purposes.
> 
> The trustchain is an interesting blockchain to decentralize trust, over
> which multiple applications can be built. Financial, reputation, etc.
> These are used for the onion routing too. Articles about trustchain are
> easy to find.
> 
> The TU Delft people put on practice since many years these concepts in
> their Tribler VideoStreaming program.
> 
> I also don't know what is not reasonable about IPv4 and UDP; ipv8 is the
> transport that hides any particular IP details, be it IPv4, UDP or
> anything else.
> 
> In any case I'm interested in opinions of those who did not just stop
> reading at the front page of the python docs. :)
> 
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 12:21:10PM +0200, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > 
> > > On 13. Apr 2020, at 12:02, Lluís Batlle i Rossell <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > I think that GNUNet and TUDelft's ipv8 (and whole ecosystem of trustchain,
> > > onion routing, etc.) have a big overlap.
> > > 
> > > Is there any shared work? or declaration opposite work? Or evaluation of
> > > both by one or the other side?
> > 
> > I do not think there is any detailed review or comparison. I have never 
> > heard of it until now.
> > Reading the "Feature" section here [1] I do not think this is well thought 
> > through concept.
> > It cites two publications, one of them only dealing with NAT and at the 
> > same time claiming it is "academically pure" (whatever that means, I assume 
> > they mean "sound"? The papers are 7-9 years old).
> > It relies on UDP via IPv4 as transport which does not seem like a 
> > reasonable choice given the options on the table today.
> > Flexibility with respect to transports is something we have identified as a 
> > core issue. Especially since eliminating metadata-exposing 
> > transports/addressing on the physical layer is what we need in the long run.
> > 
> > To be honest I also stopped reading at "ledger-based storage of reputation 
> > data".
> > Without trying to bash, looks to me like yet another blockchain-based 
> > future internet tech.
> > The website at least fails to provide the key value offerings. Are there 
> > other resources?
> > If they have any insights into better NAT handling, that would a great 
> > resource, but the paper is already 9 years old so I would assume people 
> > read it already.
> > 
> > BR
> > Martin
> > 
> > [1] https://py-ipv8.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
> > 
> > > 
> > > Thank you,
> > > Lluís.
> > > 
> > > --
> > > (Escriu-me xifrat si saps PGP / Write ciphered if you know PGP)
> > > PGP key 7CBD1DA5 - https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> (Escriu-me xifrat si saps PGP / Write ciphered if you know PGP)
> PGP key 7CBD1DA5 - https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/
> 

-- 
(Escriu-me xifrat si saps PGP / Write ciphered if you know PGP)
PGP key 7CBD1DA5 - https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/