More important, the content isn't cached as files. Each file, when uploaded, is (encrypted?) broken into (bit interleaved?) blobs and the hash address of a blob determines which randomized Freenet client caches the blob. Unless the "treasure map" of the blob hashes and key are openly published only the uploader and the private parties they share with know of a file's existence and how to reassemble it.

Our group at Mojo Nation / Mnet largely followed Freenet's path.

On Sat, Oct 19, 2019, 3:21 AM Greg Newby <gbnewby@pglaf.org> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 06:44:58PM -0300, Punk - Stasi 2.0 wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 21:06:09 +0100
> Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Isn't that why networks like i2p exist?
>       
>       yes, I was about to mention that i2p does have some of the characteristics that a tor replacement should have. Like
>
>       1) all users are also routers.
>       2) it's not funded by the pentagon.
>       3) there are no central 'directory authorities' - it's a  p2p network.
>
>       https://geti2p.net/en/comparison/tor
>
>       looks like i2p COULD do traffic padding, but it's not doing it.
>
>       "Other potential benefits of I2P but not yet implemented"
>       "create a tunnel that will handle 500 messages / minute, where the endpoint will inject dummy messages if there are insufficient messages"
>
>       for what it's worth, I tried i2p in the past a few times and abandoned it after a few days because I didn't find any interesting content in the network. My assumption was that if there was no 'illegal' content, then the system must have some (serious) flaw. On second thought I realize that's not necessarily the case at all.

It seems you can configure tor browser to route over i2p:
 https://www.reddit.com/r/i2p/comments/di6efs/configure_tor_browser_90a7_to_work_with_i2pd/

Freenet is another like-minded project. In addition to routing, it can host content: https://freenetproject.org/pages/documentation.html