Hierarchical systems are inherently centralized around points of failure, even if the controlling entity uses multiple servers. Like you said, going from one organization to several makes no difference if they all can still be cajoled by goverments.
Putting limits on the power of the US, so that we can have free speech to organize a revolution, might be a chicken and egg sort of problem. Under our current system we won’t put any sort of limits on the people in charge. I don’t think it’s realistic to hope this will change until after we do something else within our power.
I’m arguing that we ought to replace ISPs as well, in order to prevent them from being able to implement ISP-level blocks too. Most people only have one choice.
Several organizations (polycentric) isn’t as resilient as fully p2p (decentralized), but it’s a step in the right direction. There are already darknet drug markets that have been running for years, but only with .onion addresses.
Even if it’s polycentric or whatever the term is it’s still considered a mesh network.
I’m arguing that we ought to replace ISPs as well, in order to prevent them from being able to implement ISP-level blocks too. Most people only have one choice.
I am not against replacing ISPs if it means better cheaper internet or more control. I haven’t seen any of these projects actually replacing ISPs yet though. Instead everything seems to be a layer on top of the existing Internet (including Tor and I2P). Not that this is a bad thing by any means but it’s not quite the same thing. Maybe these kinds of projects like CJDNS could replace the current infrastructure one day, but I don’t think that’s been demonstrated yet.
To be honest I think the current protocols and approaches would probably work fine for replacing ISPs. Anybody can buy 5G hardware, setup routers and BGP, much of the technology is open source and certainly all of the base standards are open access. Actually purchasing and setting up the infrastructure would probably be a bigger barrier than getting the right technology if that makes sense. Mesh networking is standardized too.
Sorry if I’m following this poorly, what exactly is still considered a mesh network? I thought a requirement of mesh networks was that they were non-hierarchical.
Do we still disagree about DNS being centralized? I don’t understand how “we” can put limits on American abuse (like those two examples) before a revolution, without switching to p2p alternatives.
I don’t understand how “we” can put limits on American abuse (like those two examples) before a revolution, without switching to p2p alternatives.
I can’t predict the future so I don’t know if we can restrict government medaling. I don’t know if what you are suggesting would necessarily work either though as these all require physical infrastructure. I am not saying it’s a bad idea, having corporation free networks would be sweet, but I don’t think it’s necessarily practical until after a revolution. Maybe we should focus on things like i2p and Tor instead?
I don’t think you are using the term p2p correctly either, that applies to protocols like bittorrent, not the kind of infrastructure we are talking about.
I don’t think being non-hierachical was ever a requirement for a mesh network. Look at products made for the home that use mesh technology. Those are still hierarchical. You almost never see a pure mesh network, normally mesh is just one part of a network. That doesn’t make it not a mesh network. I think you have been reading too much anarchist literature and not enough about networks.
Anything you build to replace the Internet is going to be hierarchical anyway. You can’t expect people’s client devices to act as routers if you want a stable network, so at least two categories of devices need to be involved. Probably a lot more categories are needed in practice.
Yes I disagree that DNS is centralized. The physical servers are spread across the world. For something to be centralized it needs to be only one. That’s my understanding of the word centralized.
Hierarchical systems are inherently centralized around points of failure, even if the controlling entity uses multiple servers. Like you said, going from one organization to several makes no difference if they all can still be cajoled by goverments.
Putting limits on the power of the US, so that we can have free speech to organize a revolution, might be a chicken and egg sort of problem. Under our current system we won’t put any sort of limits on the people in charge. I don’t think it’s realistic to hope this will change until after we do something else within our power.
I’m arguing that we ought to replace ISPs as well, in order to prevent them from being able to implement ISP-level blocks too. Most people only have one choice.
Several organizations (polycentric) isn’t as resilient as fully p2p (decentralized), but it’s a step in the right direction. There are already darknet drug markets that have been running for years, but only with .onion addresses.
Even if it’s polycentric or whatever the term is it’s still considered a mesh network.
I am not against replacing ISPs if it means better cheaper internet or more control. I haven’t seen any of these projects actually replacing ISPs yet though. Instead everything seems to be a layer on top of the existing Internet (including Tor and I2P). Not that this is a bad thing by any means but it’s not quite the same thing. Maybe these kinds of projects like CJDNS could replace the current infrastructure one day, but I don’t think that’s been demonstrated yet.
To be honest I think the current protocols and approaches would probably work fine for replacing ISPs. Anybody can buy 5G hardware, setup routers and BGP, much of the technology is open source and certainly all of the base standards are open access. Actually purchasing and setting up the infrastructure would probably be a bigger barrier than getting the right technology if that makes sense. Mesh networking is standardized too.
Sorry if I’m following this poorly, what exactly is still considered a mesh network? I thought a requirement of mesh networks was that they were non-hierarchical.
Do we still disagree about DNS being centralized? I don’t understand how “we” can put limits on American abuse (like those two examples) before a revolution, without switching to p2p alternatives.
I can’t predict the future so I don’t know if we can restrict government medaling. I don’t know if what you are suggesting would necessarily work either though as these all require physical infrastructure. I am not saying it’s a bad idea, having corporation free networks would be sweet, but I don’t think it’s necessarily practical until after a revolution. Maybe we should focus on things like i2p and Tor instead?
I don’t think you are using the term p2p correctly either, that applies to protocols like bittorrent, not the kind of infrastructure we are talking about.
I don’t think being non-hierachical was ever a requirement for a mesh network. Look at products made for the home that use mesh technology. Those are still hierarchical. You almost never see a pure mesh network, normally mesh is just one part of a network. That doesn’t make it not a mesh network. I think you have been reading too much anarchist literature and not enough about networks.
Anything you build to replace the Internet is going to be hierarchical anyway. You can’t expect people’s client devices to act as routers if you want a stable network, so at least two categories of devices need to be involved. Probably a lot more categories are needed in practice.
Yes I disagree that DNS is centralized. The physical servers are spread across the world. For something to be centralized it needs to be only one. That’s my understanding of the word centralized.