to be "like freenet" philosophically is high praise indeed. any p2p that aspires to it's lofty goals of privacy and robustness deserves encouragement and support. but to be "like freenet" operationally, at least at present, is to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
tg, your description "gigabytes of inaccessible binary pulp" is a brilliantly concise explanation of the rather complex operational scheme behind the p2p.
while it conjures up an image of intestinal dysfunction of a most unfortunate nature it also illuminates an obscure subject and makes a strong case for new directions.
a p2p built for txt files and few dozen pages of word docs will never replace one optimized for full cds and hollywood blockbusters but this is no criticism of freenet. rather it’s an acknowledgement that the other programs spent way too much effort on things like 3rd party software and other insignificant items while neglecting the most important aspects of actual file sharing, avoiding the tough compromises strong protection can dictate. mainstream p2p users unfamiliar with real security were lured into believing the cost to convenience was slight. freenet has now left no doubt how wrong that thinking was, and that knowledge alone makes the program significant to the p2p community.
- js.