Could a new Internet be created?

Could a new Internet be created?

I was about to write a serious response to your thread but then I noticed you posted the /reddit/ frog.

Please leave, go back to the hole you crawled out of, and never come back here.

Yes, but you'd need the cooperation of 10's of thousands to be a network running.
I've contemplated this myself. What would be required is a "flatpack" kit for a reasonable price.
It would need a mobile phone with a strong wifi and antenna port, a solar-power kit, and waterproofing.
These kits would be purchased by willing participants, And could also use open wifi networks to connect into the clear net should need be.

i2p

Web2.0
uwotmate

You never know what's gonna come through that door

The technology isn't there yet, but I envision a new internet being completely decentralized and free.

It'll be the equivalent of everybody just connecting their routers together wirelessly for one big LAN and if you wanted to send an email to a guy across the country it would bounce packets to thousands of peoples' routers until it reaches the destination. We all just unanimously piggyback off of each other to make this work.

Again, with today's technology this sort of thing would be horrendously slow, but I see it happening eventually.

It already exists, and it's called i2p. But unfortunately it's made in Java, which is a US-based vulnerability.

Well there is cjdns and project meshnet, which involves connecting an ass ton of long-range wireless routers (or "mesh nodes"). The community is kinda dead now but was never really alive to begin with, it's mostly made up of reddit cancer and /x/-tier conspiratards who are paranoid of being watched online.

Could the new Internet be used to raid the old internet?

>java

You're embarrassing.

Zeronet

Sup Forumsnet when?

Yes. It will be censored, locked down walled garden and instead of being new it'll be the same one.

Originally some group of Scandinavian people were going to remake it in C, on FreeBSD, but it seems they failed to do that and are now doing it in
>C++
I want to use i2p but there are really only a few languages you can use for privacy.

>languages

what you actually want is algorithms and specifications, not implementations.

The thing is, if you want to audit an entire compiler for security and privacy, the simpler the language it compiles, and the simpler the language it is written in, the easier it is to audit.
If you think about how gcc is written in C++ now, and think of an i2p daemon in C++, that's a lot more complexity in between where a potential attacker could find a way to compromise a binary by replacing it with a different binary.
But I agree having formal specifications is useful, and having mathematically proven algorithms is useful. But if you implement them in a mysterious black box language (see Oracle's official closed source JVM) then there are problems.

idea guys in ${CURRENT_YEAR}

isn't a bourne shell variable just $NAME without those braces?

Yeah, let's do it! Okay, first thing to do is connect a bunch of computers together. Next, add some more computers to it. After that, hey guys, I figured out a way to join this to the main internet!

Oh look now we no longer have a separate internet.

What do you want to do?
>Challenge the monopoly held mainly by U.S. entities over namespaces? (ICANN is international, but the .com TLD is administered by an American company)
Fair enough, good luck. I think I saw a story today on something like this happening.
>Find alternatives to the "monopoly" held by open protocols like TCP/IP?
I don't know why you would want to do this, but if you make your own protocols and make open specifications for them (and they're good), then they'll compete.
> Just make a network of computers that isn't connected to the internet?
Make a local network, like an ethernet I guess. I believe this is where there used to be a distinction between "an internet" and "the Internet". If you have some reason to trust your peers on this network more than you trust the Internet at large, then you can also trust them not to connect to the internet while they're on your network.

Meanwhile if we had some technology that let us make secure long-distance wireless point-to-point connections between devices, we could build a somewhat separate network on that and it'd be pretty cool.

I used to fool around with some guys at the University of Waterloo. We were building little PCI cards with radios in them for short-ranged telecom. It was pretty cool, but it fucked with badly insulated computers in unpredictable ways and would send groovy static to some pretty wide bands.

We stopped because the cops were asking around about who was operating without a licence. Kinda wish that project came to fruition. It wasn't amazing, but it was kinda fun to send small files and see if they'd work.

Underrated/10

So why don't we go for a method of
>let messages bounce around a network loosely
>they eventually are passed to the right host via XOR metric similar to DHT and ipfs
>each message is split a given number of times into equal length components
>when all components are received and XOR'd together they create a "completion" key at the head of the message
>when the key is assembled, the message has been transmitted
>intermittent bouncers do not have the actual message- only a random string of 1s and 0s
>no bouncers carry actual information and cannot be held accountable for what they bounce

think of it like superposition of waves in a pool.

Obviously seeing as how there was an internet before the WWW that still exists today. And there are also other internets out there today.

You'll mostly connect to them via the internet though.

I'll design the logo

I was gonna make an image macro explaining the principles and then I figured fuck that and so now I just have an image with words on it

People are stupid as fuck tho. If we all wanted we can just make a Skype account and all just talk and message for free on those, but people are lazy dumb fucks

>"an internet"
you mean intranet

a = 1
ab = 2
$ab => 1b
${ab} => 2

echo $ab gives me 2 though

${a}b => 1b

i god damn hope so, a single country, that being the us, single handedly controls the current one and that aint no good

It doesn't matter, sooner or later someone will create a method of bridging the two Internet networks and one will simply become an extension of the other.

See: Satellite

Good use for old dialup modems. Use cellphones and audioband transfer. Would be slow as fuck. Text only. Maybe encrypt everything.

Of course someone could serve it to the regular net and it would just a a really slow arm the regular internet. Would be cool though.

When you have all the Internet Stones, yes.

when Sup Forumshouse gets off the ground.

(I'm sorry if this is rambly, I just woke up and it's almost 4am)

It's not quite what you're talking about but I've had a project on the back burner for a while now to design and implement PoC for a new protocol to try to replace www. Instead of serving what we think of as websites, documents are served with minimal server-side control of styling. Almost all of that is decided browser-side based on user preferences and needs. Then, browsers can do a whole lot of fancy transformations locally like pulling sections out of multiple documents into one new local document that stays up to date with remote changes to the original documents, user edits that are treated like patches and reapplied automatically to new versions of the original. Because the resulting local document is mostly just tiny patches, rehosting these if the user would like would be fairly easy. The overall idea is that the browser is like a desk that you read and compose documents on. There will be a huge focus on cryptographically-enforced author and editor attribution. Content will be static and media can be inlined in documents or opened in external viewers/players/editors at the browser and user's discretion.
If I want this to catch on, dynamic content (storefronts and forums for example) can't just be ignored. I haven't gotten to do much design here since I have less experience with how these currently work. I'm thinking either separate relatively simple protocols for different major uses (a storefront protocol and a forum protocol each with dedicated browsers that are designed to do that one usecase really well) or pushing for dedicated applications that are almost "streamed" to your computer and you could download to not have to re-download every time you use it. Like how some mobile applications are starting to work or how most of us have Sup Forums-x saved locally.
My goal is to bring back the idea of documents instead of pages and bring them into the future.

Zeronet

it would be pointless if the casuals came crawling in.

The thing about computer systems is that you can dream up a "better way" in hindsight, yet the most successful systems started out as a cheap hack, with essential features slowly realized until we get to the point today where we know what we "should've done." However the cheap hackiness of the original system is usually what allows it to gain momentum, and thus by the time you rebuild the "better" system, all of the momentum is in the older system.

A monolithic browser software like you imagine is always going to be lacking _some_ feature. The browser-is-a-mini-OS scheme we have now makes it so that the feature will always exist as long as someone makes it.

Did you just say GNU/Linux + cloud technology?

Look up Project Xanadu.

Yeah, I get that. I just wonder where we'd be right now if things were a little different. I remember seeing a talk by a well-known computer scientist I forget his name about how we interact with documents that got me thinking along these lines. It's not an idea that has any chance of gaining momentum though. Hell, I doubt I could even begin to formally draft this up and eventually implement this outside of a research setting. Nobody's going to pay for its development for sure.
My hope would be for multiple browsers each tailored for specific needs which might not be too much to ask of users looking at mobile.
I hope not. The browser-is-a-mini-OS is exactly what I'm trying to get away from.
Yes exactly.