The real objection is that supporters of the ideology dislike the characterization embedded in the term.

People can argue about the boundaries of the term, but pretending nobody knows what is being referred to is not a serious argument.

In both systems data will tend to cluster on peers close to the data's location because otherwise requests couldn't find it.

The main difference is that in the new Freenet the content can be updated, with updates propagating through peers hosting the content.

lol

You're welcome :)

> My question is whether freenet is designed to be resistant for active adversaries with deep packet inspection capability, particularly like the Chinese firewall that is also observed to do statistical timing analysis of packets? Is there any possibility to apply obfuscation to the peer to peer connection?

Freenet's transport protocol is a custom encrypted protocol over UDP, but it is not currently designed to evade sophisticated deep packet inspection or timing analysis by state-level adversaries like the Great Firewall.

That said, the transport layer is modular, and we would absolutely accept contributions adding traffic obfuscation or pluggable transports, subject to the usual tradeoffs around latency, bandwidth overhead, and resource usage.

> And is there any mechanism to aid peer discovery (DHT?)

Freenet uses a distributed small-world routing topology for peer discovery and efficient message propagation. It isn't a conventional Kademlia-style DHT, but conceptually it serves a similar purpose.

The network is designed to self-organize into a small-world topology.[1]

[1] See the "Distance" graph at the bottom-right of the circle visualization - http://nova.locut.us:3133/

The freenet-git work is quite recent but we do feature River, our group chat app, fairly prominently on our installation page[1] so that people can quickly try out something useful. River is by-far the most fully developed app so far.

[1] https://freenet.org/quickstart/

I never said that.

No, that's not how evidence works.

You're starting from the assumption of wrongdoing and then treating the lack of evidence as confirmation of your suspicion.

Meanwhile we've spent the last 5 years publicly building a working decentralized platform.

Interestingly, there seems to be very little overlap between the people giving substantive technical feedback and the people most upset about a 3-year-old naming controversy.