[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Gnunet and TUDelft ipv8

From: Schanzenbach, Martin
Subject: Re: Gnunet and TUDelft ipv8
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 12:21:10 +0200


> 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 
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 
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 



> Thank you,
> Lluís.
> --
> (Escriu-me xifrat si saps PGP / Write ciphered if you know PGP)
> PGP key 7CBD1DA5 -

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]