On 30/11/15 20:32, Dan Roberts wrote: > I am strongly against this pay-for-opennet strategy until we've exhausted > other funding options. To my knowledge we have only contacted 3 potential > donors out of many! Frankly, I doubt we could even put together a > successful kickstarter campaign at this point, given that we can't bother > to write a few letters. If we care about funding, our immediate goal should > be to finish the donation letter and start tailoring it to individual > donors. (I have not focused on this either, mea culpa)
True, we should apply for more funding. And yes, a Kickstarter project would involve a lot of work to put a good pitch together. However IMHO it might be much more successful if we had something meaningful to give donors. > I realize the motivation for pay-for-opennet is also to improve security, > but others have already raised enough concerns about that aspect. I had hoped we could solve both problems. Of course that doesn't mean providing perfect security, but it does mean improving the situation dramatically. Clearly we are not going to move forward on this since there is no consensus in favour. So we should either: 1) Stick our heads in the sand and sing the glories of opennet, in spite of clear evidence of it being irredeemably broken, or 2) Hope that more people use darknet. We've been doing both for some time. Technical improvements to darknet are long overdue but at best in the short run we will have a set of darknet pockets joined together by opennet. Which means that users can be traced to their darknet pocket, and will usually be small enough that that is enough to identify them.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
