Decentralized internet

Decentralized internet.
Can a truly free, anonymous, and impossible to monetize internet exist?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.fo/ymVRe
reddit.com/r/darknetplan/
networkworld.com/article/3168763/security/university-attacked-by-its-own-vending-machines-smart-light-bulbs-and-5-000-iot-devices.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone#Tier_1_providers
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

...

No. If it was wired then it would be too expensive. If it was wireless then the government could easily jam it.

>impossible to monetize

commies a shit

IPFS

Monetization leads to rent seeking which reinforces monopolies. Fuck off.

How does decentralization lead to demonetization?

Zeronet seems to fill that role well enough.

>wired would be too expensive

In dense population areas, could neighbors not just run a

It's a cool idea, but who pays for communication infrastructure in this instance?
Maybe a stupid question, soz.

sure, but it wouldn't be too big. only would work in dense neighborhoods. which i would be cool with 2bh.

Gee, I wonder how monetization of things happened before the internet. Somehow, people will have to shill products on a smaller scale, to people who might actually be near to, say, a store. But we all know targeted ads don't work, email lists for porn are the only things that work.

therein liies the problem
who will pay to lay down new cabling as upgrades are available and needed?

everything currently piggybacks off infrastructure built by large telcos.

This. Simply creating a "platform" and then charging people to use it won't be all that profitable anymore. However that doesn't mean that all commerce will cease.

>people will have to shill products on a smaller scale

which is what the internet was pre-2005

yes

forgot pic

>being mad that people are making money off of the internet

Should have gotten that STEM degree degenerate.

pretty sure OP is talking about more than just some faggot on youtube making 6 figures.

Its the consolidating of sites and places to go from several hundred million sites to just a few dozen. but not only that, the requirement to subscribe to something in order to see the content.

besides, do you really want to wait for ISPs to force the installation of their root CA before you can access the internet?

nice contribution to the topic, retard

>Can a truly free, anonymous, and impossible to monetize internet exist?
I suspect not, but I also suspect we can get close enough for things to be an improvement over the status quo

It's interesting stuff. I didn't know that etherium was more than just a bitcoin knockoff.

The internet is already decentralized. Jesus Christ just make another shitty P2P protocol and give the 12 people who use it a bumper sticker.

I spotted the sheep

Not when you compare it to 15 years ago internet.
the two are entirely different animals at that point.

Distributed would be excellent if it weren't for the immense number of hops and huge amounts of data needed to index or find anything

People actually believe this? Govt can't even prevent credit card fraud and social security numbers are archaic as fuck

p2p can never work because it inevitably ends up filled with CP and malware like Limewire was back in the day.

No they're not. The internet is bigger than ever. You just don't want to go to the 15 year old sites anymore since they were all shit.

Let's say that I'm in Venezuela and the government suddenly decides to cut off internet access.

How would I create a new underground network?

Fuck off CIA shilll.

the fuck are you even trying to argue?


most human traffic, is pretty much confined to a handful of sites. the majority of all internet traffic (according to imperva) is 52% bots. and with IOT shit making its way into our lives, it can and must only get worse.

but your claim that it is "bigger than ever" doesnt make sense.

The CIA would already have millions of ways to create internal networks, or get satellite internet access.

I am genuinely excited for this.
Good thread about it.
archive.fo/ymVRe

A network requires transmission media.
Such media comes in many forms, i.e. cable, fiber, radio, etc.

The main thing is that these transmission techniques are super obvious by nature. Cables running around aren't exactly discreet, and radio waves are literally a beacon saying "HEY IM TRANSMITTING INFORMATION".

Your best bet for moving information around is USB drives.
Getting info out of the country: satellite, or line of sight microwave link.

The problem with radio is that it requires equipment. If this equipment is seen or discovered, it could end poorly for you.

There's nothing wrong with a monopoly. By concentrating resources the system will run at max efficiency.

distributed p2p networks built over a wifi meshnet would be best bet

we could sidestep the rules of the internet and isps

the outernet if you will

reddit.com/r/darknetplan/

#sneakernet

bait

this is most likely. Everyone has a router capable of wireless.
the issue however is range. urban centers this isnt an issue, but once you get into the suburbs and rural areas, there is no way to deliver without resorting to wired tech to make those long hops.
which brings us back to
>who pays for the hardware to ensure those in the sticks get internet?

I'm not sure I understand this even theoretically. I would still need a regular internet connection right? So I would have to be paying comcast the full amount of regular internet service? What's the point?

fuck off, Ajit

who truly believes this? besides those with stock in this idea i mean.

I love you GNU! (|^__^) oWo~

Cue fuckwit urban troll,
>why for internet to stick ppl?

This needs more resources, namely manpower.

how does that index torrents?

Okay so when you say impossible to monetize you mean because it's basically one big million-man-in-the-middle attack on everyone using it at all times so only an idiot would put their credit card in there?

if everyone's router/switch was connected to everyone (wired or wirelessly) without the need to go through an ISP, then the net would essentially be free.

just imagine the internet without the need to suck off the bouncer before you are allowed in.

No it means that IP would be irrelevant since you could never really take anything down from it.

because a piece of the internet is stored on EVERY SINGLE CONNECTED DEVICE, encrypted, and impossible to identify and therefore read and remove?

Not him, but he said jam. As in blocking the signal.

that would be cool, but still limited by tech in that it doesn't exist yet and/or controlled by the /badguys/
i could imagine said network though, missed the first start of most of the internet due to being born too late, but even when i started around 98 as a kid and a decade or so after it was still great, though i was too young to really appreciate. it was not yet walled off and restricted to a few sites.

>it was not yet walled off and restricted to a few sites.
AOL was kinda like this. it was a small hassle to circumvent their walled garden, but you could look back to AOLs dashboard and that should give you an idea of the direction the net is headed.

>limited by tech in that it doesn't exist yet

internet of things my good user.

washers, refrigerators, cars, lamp posts, sprinklers, doorbells, light bulbs, garage openers, electrical outlets, ceiling fans, the list goes on.
each one a potential server and storage spot.
>/badguys/
they are already there.
networkworld.com/article/3168763/security/university-attacked-by-its-own-vending-machines-smart-light-bulbs-and-5-000-iot-devices.html


hackers are working fucking quadruple time trying to beat everyone to the punch in turning every IOT device into their own botnet.

yeah i can see that, aol was waning when i got in and not as strong of a institution as it once was, but now the threats are much more concentrated with more money to burn. and the tools to analyze, quantize, and monetize are so much better that it makes aol seem quaint.
maybe i'm off base though, maybe i wasn't aware of how it was or how it is.
and even this site i feel like it's gotten too big, co-opted by interests and lost its way.

yeah but people would have to opt in, at least that's my thinking as a non-blackhat. and as it stands i have a few of those devices i would more than gladly help add to the mesh, but people don't care, might even be frightened by something they don't understand or want to.

>he wants spiders in his internet

>yeah but people would have to opt in
Hold on, what if they didn't have to. Someone with a large botnet could just switch them all into IPFS node, right? And then boom, global permanent free* internet.

>Decentralized internet.
No such thing retards as long as the pipes belong to the kikes.

>permanent
don't think so, only play here is to try to convert people and not by forcing it otherwise the unwashed masses will turn on you.

The internet is already decentralized, you fucking idiot.

no lol

Do you even know what "internet" is short for? Do you have even the slightest idea for how it works?

Do you even know how the cables and routers are connected and to whom the belong?

>the cables and routers
Which cables and routers?
>to whom the belong
There is no single entity which controls the entire internet.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbone#Tier_1_providers

>decentralized
>hue hue hue

It doesnt but everyone on Sup Forums is in high school

yea, i dont think it will turn out like that.

>people read in media that all of their connected things are now providing "free internet"
>doing zero due diligence and following all knee jerk reactions (as most humans today do), instantly become mad because facebook told them to be mad.
>govt, realizing that they have a few months to kill this before everyone calms the fuck down and figures it out, jails all involved and kills the project.
>comcastcoxfrontierverizonwarnerattsprint continue consolidating and funneling their customers toward an internet modeled after 90s style cable.

Nonono man, i mean there's no way people would know about it. Botnets aren't made up of people's personal computers anymore, this isn't 1999. Everyone's security cameras and thermostats could just be passively routing internet traffic.

I'm starting to really like this idea.

They could never kill it all. I'm really feeling like this is some fight club shit. It could really change things.

Would you look at that: there is more than one of them.
The tier 1 providers (or any ISP, really) definitely don't make up the decentralised nodes in the graph in OP's picture.
You stupid fucks don't know anything about networking.

>use comcast
>try to go to YTMND.com
>sorry we don't have that website, it's on another network
>we gotta connect you to AT&T's internet to get it
What?

yeah, given the push against hackers, now that muslim terrorists are normalized, i think they will take the opportunity to create a new boogeyman, started already will just get worse. what is to say who is a hacker or not, what would be their cutoff point?
should keep the idea just an idea, unless you want your doors broken down.

Please user, you're embarrassing yourself.

>distributed meshnet
>hopping distance is O(sqrt(n)) on average
>muh latency
It's possible, but it will never replace traditional internet

>i think they will take the opportunity to create a new boogeyman
We can already see that they haven't with WanaCry. That shit could have been Trump's 9/11, hist to justify almost anything with. But he doesn't know shit about this stuff. None of them do.

And they know neither do most Americans so it doesn't sell on prime time news.

>no coherent argument

The freenet project currently does something like that.
>allocate X storage space for freenet
>freenet fills it up over time with random bits of its network
>users pull the websites from these various sources to compile the entire thing


but sadly freenet is shit, has very few active users, and pretty much everyone shuts out everyone and only connects to trusted sources, because, you know, pizza and all that.
also, its laggy as fuck, taking a few minutes to download a site.

>zeronet
>files unencrypted
>people need to visit content to store it
>no more user than BitTorrent
>based on fucking SQL and WebSockets

L M A O even storj.io isn't this bad

Your statements were so stupid, there was no point even trying to refute it.
You clearly have ZERO understanding of how the internet works, and I can't be fucked trying to tell you the fundamentals.

so we've got an incompetent administration, good for now. just look what shit a semi-competent can and did get us into with 9/11. it's coming and you kid yourself if you think since they didn't take advantage now, they won't in the future.

>I don't know what I'm talking about

>Can a truly free, anonymous, and impossible to monetize internet exist?

That's the wrong question.

Such an internet could exist, but over the time it would change into something different. Don't forget our current internet was free and pretty anonymous in the beginning.

It's just like this thing called "gentrification": all things start as niche and then get more professionally and then it gets public and the it gets comfy for normies. And then somewhere else a niche appears.. and so on.

Technology changes constantly, think about it like bacteria:
There are two tribes (lets call the BACTERIUM GNUTARDIUM FREETARDIS and SPONGIFORNUM NORMIEFAG) that coexist peacefully. And there is a parasite tribe call FLUENTIA SECURITAS CONTROLIUM that tries to infect and consume those other two tribes. But GNUTARDIUM FREETARDIS can resist them a little bit and develop a certain immunity. Even more interseting, some how this tribe can also immunize SPONGIFORNUM NORMIEFAG. But then FLUENTIA SECURITAS CONTROLIUM changes and is able to infect them again. It's a delicate predator-prey interaction, that moves constantly. But the funny thing is, by adapting to the predator, the peacefull tribes also evolve into something better, they find new mechanisms to protect themselves - or die. It's a cruel game, but it's for the greater good.

>None of them do.

CNN tried to run a piece on wanacry but failed because their erection for all things Trump is so massive, the talking heads, within 60 seconds jumped from the NSA to Trump's involvement with Russia.
Everyone in the media and politics is so focused on wanting to know how many pieces of corn was found in Trump's wake up poop, the entirety of every American's 401k could be reduced to zero, and the media will only gloss over it.

Okay well I feel like you've sort of lost the track here. I'm just saying someone, probably not any of us but someone could theoretically accomplish a seriously history making hack this way and the only victims would be the shitty cyberpunk nightmare mega-corporations we call ISPs.

and someday i'll get a gf, i'm sure these two events will both occur one day.

Why are you being so negative about this, Ajit? A boy has a right to dream.

>truly free
>impossible to monetize
pick one

I think people are just wanting something similar to pre-2005 internet. where monitization was possible, just a bit difficult and didnt pervade every fucking thing consistently asking for subscription fees or forcing you to watch 5+ 90+ second obnoxious ads.

that's the good thing about the free market. those things only last as long as people are willing to put up with the bullshit or until someone provides a more optimal solution.

Sure, once quantum entanglement modems are real and the internet doesn't rely on government and corporate infrastructure.

>impossible to monetize
Why would anyone spend money on that?

the same reason phone/cable companies hemorrhaged money in the 90s building the infrastructure.

I've thought about that, but don't the core of industry and governement sort of drive the progress that made internet possible in the first place, or at least provide the foundation for it? I mean people see the paradigm of citizens>corporations>government as an unbalanced power equation but don't the two latter exist to serve the former? Not to mention that members of corporations and governments are both classified as citizens as well, and you can't really have either entity without the constituents thereof. I guess what I'm saying is ultimately all aspects of technological advancement rely on industry and infrastructure in some form. Whether it's innovation or general upkeep, there has to be some structure there.

>60541584
yes it's a series of pipes/tubes which connect to microsoft headquarters where the big server is

>By concentrating resources the system will run at max efficiency.

wouldn't this be super unstable?

>don't the two latter exist to serve the former

That's literally never been the case.

The point is, as long as you're dependent on government-owned cables maintained by private corporations, the internet will never be "free, anonymous, and impossible to monetize". Such a thing would require direct connections between clients and servers with no 3rd parties inbetween.

keep telling yourself that

well, the government is "by the people, for the people", so when you say government-owned you're saying subject to public scrutiny and open to free enterprise. I mean all the people currently in government are elected members, we chose them to represent us in the effort of extending our private interests. That's the role of government in one sense is to provide the infrastructure for commerce, and the internet is no doubt vital to accomplishing that aim.

and even then without public and private interests what use would the internet be? Without the exchange of commerce, knowledge, free enterprise? I mean that's the whole basis of Telecommuncation systems anyway is to extend the ability to engage in the exchange of ideas and free trade.

I'm telling YOU that. I don't need to tell myself that, I see it at work all of the time out in the world. People are much freer than they think. The major phenoma holding them back is their own apathy.

The internet is decentralised....

>I mean all the people currently in government are elected members, we chose them to represent us in the effort of extending our private interests.
if you're talking about the US that's wrong, there are many government officials who wield immense power but have never been subject to an election. we trust our officials to assign the right people to the right jobs, but 90% of the time this doesn't work out in the way it should.

the disposition matrix literally exists because the american people can't tell the federal government what to do. nothing is perfect.