I didn't post this but I'm the guy in the video dressed like Tom Scott. This talk was 8 months ago but everything is still relevant. We're very close to an initial release which I'll (of course) announce on HN. In the meantime I'm happy to answer any questions. You can learn more about Freenet at https://freenet.org/.
Could you change the name? Since there hasn't been a release yet, it would break nothing, and there's already a project (that you also started, but that is used by more people, since it is released software) that was named Freenet, that would probably like its name back.
Reusing the name of a longstanding software project for a similar but distinct project with wildly different security guarantees is hazardous; it means that existing documentation which directs people to use "Freenet" in a specific way may expose them to unexpected risks. Please reconsider.
The name belongs to the non-profit and not a specific codebase, the previous codebase had itself a number of fundamental rewrites (eg. with the 0.7 release) and retained the name Freenet through them - this is no different.
The name change decision was made over a year ago after a long debate and very careful consideration. There is risk but risk is inevitable if you want to make progress.
> The name change decision was made over a year ago after a long debate and very careful consideration.
There was no "careful consideration" whatsoever.
What you did was the opposite of careful in fact:
Without ANY prior discussion with the maintainers of the existing Freenet project you came to the mailing list and DICTATED your decision of reusing the name "Freenet".
It's all publicly documented in the mailing list archive, see the thread "Important Announcement: Freenet naming change" of Ian Clarke (Ian Clarke is the user "sanity" I am replying to here):
When you dictated this, the team said they're against it - and you did it anyway.
Yes, you claimed you discussed it with the "board" of the project!
But the "board" only contains people who haven't talked to the team in over a decade. Of course they shrugged off your decision because the only way they are in contact with the project is through what you say, so you can shape their opinion however you please by selectively deciding what you tell them.
It was a very sad act of disgracing the effort of volunteer contributors.
And it isn't even in the best interest of your new project either, because it seems to haunt every discussion about it.
How about thinking about whether you made a mistake?
Mistakes happen and aren't bad. What's bad is never admitting one.
I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, but I need to correct some inaccuracies in your comment.
The decision to rebrand Locutus as Freenet 2023 was not made lightly or without discussion. On the contrary, I had an extensive discussion with the lead maintainer of the original codebase starting over a year before the decision was announced.
The primary reason for the redesign was to address the significant changes in technology and the web since the original Freenet was first designed in 1999 and underwent its last major redesign in 2005. These different eras brought different technologies and problems. To effectively address today's challenges, a comprehensive redesign was necessary.
As the architect of Freenet, it was my responsibility to make this decision based on what would lead to the best end result, even if it wasn't the most popular choice. The goal was to create software that could gain sufficient adoption to tackle the serious problems we're seeing with centralization today.
I understand that this decision was controversial and not everyone agreed with it. However, it was made to ensure that Freenet could continue to innovate and adapt in the face of modern challenges. Mistakes can happen, but in this case, the decision was made with careful consideration and a focus on the long-term goals of the project. I stand by my decision.
I appreciate the contributions of all volunteers and maintainers, and I deeply respect their work. The goal was never to overshadow their efforts but to build on the legacy of Freenet in a way that meets current and future needs.
I hope this clarifies the situation and provides some context for the decision.
I'm not going to change the name again. I carefully weighed up the pros and cons over the course of a year - debating the issue with those that disagreed. Eventually I made a call as the architect of Freenet. It's not without risk, but risks are sometimes necessary.
People are entitled to disagree but I'm not going to relitigate it at this point.
It's always tricky to do head-to-head comparisons as there is so much detail with these projects.
Freenet is designed to be a complete drop-in replacement for the world wide web, handling the discovery, distribution, and execution of an ecosystem of decentralized software. It's a platform. Similar to how installing a browser gives you access to the entire web, installing Freenet gives you access to all decentralized services built on it.
Freenet's most unique architectural feature is that it's a global key-value store where keys are cryptographic contracts that control what values are permissible under the key and how these values can change. This is the key (pun intended) idea that makes it so general purpose.
My impression with Veilid is that it's more a set of tools and libraries that can be incorporated into software - but it isn't a platform in its own right that can allow software to be discovered and distributed.
Think of it like the difference between buying a car (freenet) or a crank shaft that must be integrated with other components to be useful.
Using hash-of-validation-WASM as a state key is a really cool idea and I'm excited to see how it goes operationally.
Using (blinded) proof of donation as an anti-abuse signal is a clever band-aid but seems fraught in the long term. Is there a plan to switch off of it to something less centralized, or is it staying this way until it causes problems?
> Using hash-of-validation-WASM as a state key is a really cool idea and I'm excited to see how it goes operationally.
Thank you :)
> Using (blinded) proof of donation as an anti-abuse signal is a clever band-aid but seems fraught in the long term.
Agreed.
> Is there a plan to switch off of it to something less centralized, or is it staying this way until it causes problems?
These blind trust tokens are a proof-of-concept because while it is anonymous and has the benefit of funding the project, it is centralized which is far from ideal.
Proof-of-work could be used as a decentralized mechanism for mitigating abuse but I don't like deliberately burning energy. I quite like a concept called "proof-of-trust" that I describe here [1], but the design needs to be fleshed out.
The primary non-technical challenge to all these distributed storage system is the storage of illegal data. How does this protocol deal with this issue?
Freenet side-steps this problem because it is more of a communication medium than a storage medium. It also isn't optimized for the distribution of large files that are the most likely to pose copyright issues. It's not a substitute for BitTorrent.
Crypto is mostly about building global decentralized ledgers, think of Freenet as a much more general global decentralized computer. I suggest watching the video if you can.
> While the previous version was designed with a focus on anonymity, the current version does not offer built-in anonymity but allows for a choice of anonymizing systems to be layered on top.
I wonder why this choice was made. To me it's concerning...seemed like one of the big draws of freenet was the anonymous nature of it, and it seems like this would cause some fragmentation if there's multiple options to choose from.
I didn't think the original was truly anonymous without other systems being used anyways. Probably better to just allow integration with other systems since the methods of staying anonymous will change over time.
Because it's a better architecture. There are numerous different approaches to anonymity, each with different pros and cons (mixnets, dining cryptographers, etc). It's better to have a system that can offer a choice of anonymity mechanisms without locking users into one approach.
The new Freenet is a platform for building interoperable decentralized systems. Some of these systems can provide anonymity, and can be integrated into other systems if the creators of those systems choose to do so.
This sounds a lot like IPFS's strategy regarding anonymity, and AFAIK it resulted in basically no one being able to use IPFS anonymously. When anonymity requires building your own separate sub-community and maintaining your own custom plugin/patchset/configuration for the client, it's really hard to achieve that because the default non-anonymous project sucks all the oxygen out of the room.
Do you at least plan to provide some level of baseline consideration for privacy/anonymity in the main project, like making sure core protocols/libraries don't expose fingerprinting surfaces or leak information?
IPFS and Freenet employ fundamentally different approaches, so comparing them isn't quite valid. With Freenet, there is no need to build separate sub-communities or worry about plugins, patches, etc.
Freenet is designed to facilitate the creation of various decentralized tools that are fully interoperable. Among these tools, some can provide anonymity, allowing application builders to choose the appropriate tools for their specific needs.
This approach is better than imposing a one-size-fits-all solution as the previous Freenet did.
> Do you at least plan to provide some level of baseline consideration for privacy/anonymity in the main project, like making sure core protocols/libraries don't expose fingerprinting surfaces or leak information?
Freenet incorporates several novel approaches to enhance data privacy. For example, delegates[1] allow users to manage private information without leaking it to other software components, unlike how browser local storage can. There are other precautions like Freenet's protocol being encrypted from the first byte making it more difficult to fingerprint.
Mitigating things like correlation attacks is more complicated since they normally require introducing delays and low-latency is an important design goal - so that will be handled by specific anonymity systems.
Freenet is free as in free speech, not free beer. The goal is to provide a platform that allows people to build sophisticated decentralized systems to replace today's centralized systems. The original Freenet architecture wasn't flexible enough to do this.
I love freenet as we continue to see the growth of authoritative bodies attempt to control the Internet I think it will become more and more important.
The other thing I love about freenet is it feels exactly like using the Internet in the late 90's in almost every way. Same speeds, same simple pages, same crazy whackos spouting conspiracy theories about how JFK shot first, it really is a time capsule that I love.
No relation except that it's created by the same person tackling the same problem (in a more general way) and sharing many underlying concepts like small world networking. The FAQ covers the main differences: https://freenet.org/faq#faq-3
I assume they may be referring to freenets that was an early method of accessing the internet for free, not requiring AOL or some other service for access.
True, they might be referring to that, although if so this is the first time I’ve heard such a complaint in 25 years.
The usage of the term "free-net" to describe early methods of free internet access was quite obscure even in 1999, I only learned of it years after starting Freenet.
Wow, I just remembered that I had an account on one of these "free-net" systems at some point in high school (late 1990s).
It was a much more trusting time in which people routinely gave all kinds of computer access to strangers just to help them out, or in some sense to help the net grow. When my computer club set up a Linux server at our high school, we sort of joined in by happily giving shell accounts to random strangers who had no connection with the school at all. Nobody seemed to think this was a bad idea!
Yes, it reminds me that apparently email in the 1970s didn't even bother with passwords - everyone just had an inbox file that was publicly readable/writable. How times have changed.
"Freenet" already had a very specific meaning in the early ninities which could only be obscure if one was not paying attention.
I still maintain my freenet email address from 1991.
I recommend you find your own name for your very comendable project,
swiping an existing one is confusing and somewhat dodgy.
It may have had that meaning in the early 90s but by the late 90s it was obscure, so much so that the domain freenet.org remained registered but unused from 1999 until I was able to acquire it in 2019.
Calling this "swiping" implies I was aware of the previous meaning, I wasn't. Moreover, in 25 years this may be the first time someone has complained about it.
In any case, this is all ancient history at this point.
The particular swiping in question happened a couple of decades ago now (I agree that it was a confusing ambiguity at the time); the proposed swiping now could also be a confusing ambiguity, but would be by the same people who were responsible for the prior swiping.
I disagree that any "swiping" took place as I wasn't aware of the prior meaning because hardly anyone was using it in 1999, nor did anyone bring it up at the time.
Similarly, no swiping took place more recently unless you think using the name of my own project is "swiping". I address this in more detail in a recent [1] reddit comment.
I meant to be partly tongue-in-cheek in saying that, although this doesn't come through well in text, but I do share the present-day concern about people potentially becoming confused.
I found that forced namegrab by the original autor quite rude in the beginning, but now I made peace with that and like the name hyphanet even more. That whole drama backfired for him: First, there will be always this discussion. Second, the term Freenet is quite unusable in search engines, whereas hyphanet is nice and unique to find in search engines.
Often a lot of the chat is just people who read the headline but this discussion seems to be just people who read the word 'freenet' and stopped right there.
The architecture is really interesting and pretty simple for a distributed system. It's nicely presented in the video too.
The examples offered in the docs are very specific to builders of a globally distributed system but some examples of how you might go about building some useful day to day applications would be handy.
We are working on this, we do have a simple email app [1] and recently completed a more "hello world" type example freenet-ping [2].
Right now our focus is on getting the network up and running (hopefully we're days away - just tracking down some final bugs), but some good practical example apps is high on our todo list.
The original Freenet (with some focus on anonymity) is rebranded Hyphanet, and the new version (which does not offer built-in anonymity) is now the official Freenet. What a mess.
The new version will offer a choice of approaches to anonymity. I wouldn't call it a mess but there is 25 years of history to the project which does inevitably lead to some complexity. I summarize the naming situation here [1]
A mess is if you drop a cup of milk on the carpet.
Commandeering the name of a decades old and well-known project whose only remarkable feature is anonymity, and then not making anonymity integral to the new project, is like destroying the milk factory and telling everyone to drink orange juice instead.
Nothing has been destroyed—Hyphanet is still available at https://hyphanet.org/. Freenet's most remarkable feature is its use of a small-world network to achieve decentralization; anonymity systems weren't new even in 1999. A pluggable approach to anonymity is simply a better architecture.
Nor is this the first time Freenet has been redesigned; the last time was in 2005.
The notion that this is some sort of catastrophe is melodramatic. Rebrands and rearchitectures happen all the time, and in this case, for good reasons—reasons that critics of the decision always fail to address.
I summarize here [1], you can find more context here [2], and learn more about the differences here [3]. For a detailed explanation of the new design see the video talk above.
And haven't there already been at least two reasonably popular but incompatible versions before? I think 0.5 was still used for quite a while when 0.7 was around. They offered similar services and anonymity concepts though.
0.5 didn’t support a friend-to-friend structure, so the privacy protection possible with it was much lower than with 0.7 released in 2007. Since 2007 Freenet / Hyphanet stayed compatible with content from previous versions.
A summary of the changes since 2007 can be found in the presentation “Freenet / Hyphanet: the long game”:
Currently waiting for the new signing infrastructure for the Windows installer before turning the release to final.
Freenet 0.7.5 build 1498
This release resolves the last blocker for Freenet / Hyphanet 0.8 by
providing an official Debian package. Additionally it optimizes the
networking and data transfer core and provides many improvements for
website authors and user experience.
Starting with this release, Freenet / Hyphanet has an official Debian
package built automatically via github actions. This was the most
important [high-impact-task][] and the last release blocker of version
0.8 in our [Roadmap][]. Big thanks go to DC!
With this finally realized, the next step is to get in contact with
the many privacy focussed distributions which build on Debian to make
`hyphanet-fred` available where it is most important. Once this is
done, tools which build on Hyphanet — like FMS, but also jSite and
tools from pyFreenet — can be packaged to work out of the box, using
Hyphanet as an ordinary background service. That’s a step towards
Hyphanet as decentralized, privacy-preserving communication backend for
other applications.
Another step towards this is accepting the Schema hypha[net] to
simplify writing browser extensions that forward hypha:-links to
Hyphanet.
The networking layer was optimized significantly. Searching packet
types is often stopped early and common or cheaper checks are done
before less common or time-consuming checks. This gives significant
reductions of CPU load, especially for very fast nodes.
Juiceman fixed a bug limiting MTU to 1280 where not needed.
And recently failed and data not found cooldown times were reduced to
5 minutes and 3 minutes, reducing one of the big annoyances when
accessing a site quickly after upload.
On the data transfer layer, healing was optimized. After 1495 strongly
increased the amount of healing to keep large files available for
longer, 1498 specializes healing to keys close to the node location.
This reduces healing per file, but improves privacy, because healing
inserts are then more similar to forwarding — they mostly send data
close to the nodes location — and it reduces the network load of
healing, because the specialized healing inserts need fewer hops to
reach the optimal storage location in the network.
In addition to these changes deep down, there are a number of directly
visible improvements.
The plugins KeepAlive and Sharesite are updated (the latter now uses
the new Night Zen Garden style). The UPnP2 plugin is now visible in
simple mode. It can replace UPnP and should work better. On the
flipside the Library plugin is moved to advanced plugins, because it
does not work reliably enough.
The plugin list is easier to navigate by removing the defunct option
to download plugins from the clearnet and by adding better styling.
Downloading from the clearnet was an unnecessary privacy risk since
we’ve been bundling essential plugins with the installer for a few
years now.
The noderef for friend-to-friend connections is shown in simple mode
again, because it is robust enough with the changes in recent years.
This should remove a barrier to adding direct connections and enabling
fully confidential messages between friends.
There are new configuration options to allow connecting via local
services. That’s a step towards making it easy to add a second layer
of security, for example confining connections to a local network.
Thanks goes to s7r for these changes!
When bandwidth detection fails, the upload bandwidth now defaults to
160KiB/s. Also the NLM config is now disabled statically. This was a
testing setup which could still be active in old nodes, but it would
break connectivity nowadays.
The default bookmarks include the Opennet SeedNodes statistics,
the generate media site to create decentralized streaming sites, and
the high-impact-tasks. The bookmarks are also re-ordered to be a
better match for newcomers. Starting category: first steps, clean
spider, Index of Indexes. For the software category ordered by ease of
use from fproxy.
For website authors, more CSS elements, selectors and combinators
(`:checked`, `word-wrap: anywhere`, `focus-within`, `^=`, `$=`, `=`,
`>`, `+`, `~`) and additional HTML elements (`summary`, `details`,
`<meta name="Viewport"...>`) are available. This strongly expands the
possibilities of websites authors in Hyphanet, because Javascript or
webassembly are no viable options in an environment where a privacy
breach could put people at risk. We’ve seen with Java applets, that
untrusted code will always break out of its containment. The CSS
improvements in contrast provide a safe way to enable limited
interactivity.
Streaming support via m3u lists was improved to allow accessing
segments of up to 200MiB.
And using `-1` as version in a USK now properly finds version `0`, if
this is the only existing version.
There were a number of Java 21 fixes, including all our tests (thanks
to Bombe!), and improvement to the github actions (thanks to
AHOHNMYC).
In addition to that there was a lot of polish. Bert Massop and
Veniamin Fernandes replaced our homegrown CurrentTimeUTC with modern
Java options. Alex fixed the pronoun used in strings. Bombe added
getters for all direct field access in the node. Hiina reduced logging
level of store warnings so no unneeded backtraces are created for node
with large stores and Juiceman updated code to use more modern
structures.
Time-dependence of compressor selection was removed. This caused
non-determinism for inserts and could cause keys to be
non-reproducible on systems with faster or slower network.
And finally the new [exe signing workflow][] we built to fulfill the
requirements of SignPath, our new windows installer signing provider
for the upcoming releases, runs the [verify-build script][] on every
release to ensure that the jar we release has actually been built from
the sources. This provides a second safety net, in addition to
anonymous users running the script and posting the results (thanks to
all who did this — please keep it up, otherwise people have to fully
trust github). The release is not yet byte-by-byte reproducible,
because the jar MANIFEST defines among other info the exact java
version used to compile it, and the java version available differs by
distribution and time, so it would get harder over time to verify the
build.
A special thanks goes to Bombe for many careful reviews!
