F2F UDP mesh net prototype proof of concept

[Punk - Stasi 2.0]

On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 09:30:02 +1100
Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 07:22:12PM -0300, Punk - Stasi 2.0 wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 20:58:37 +1100
> > Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > See https://github.com/zenaan/covfefe if you wish to follow along
> > > with this exploration.
> > 	
> > 	"covfefe"? - you might want to first explain why you chose that name and then change it.
> > 
> > 	Until you do, it may be safe to dismiss you as a fascist trump agent. 
> 
> Doesn't matter if it's Antifa Rayzer who wishes to speak, Trump or
> Juan who wishes to speak. The right is sacrosanct,


	right, and that has fuck to do with the name you chose. A free speech platform is unbiased. The name you chose isn't unbiased at all. 


> and
> notwithstanding if anyoen of these call to censor (or worse, murder,
> in the case of Rayzer), they have a right to say what they wish to
> say.
> 
> If we cannot stand for the right of those with disagree with, to say
> what they wish to say, we don't deserve our own freedom of
> communication.


	and what has that got to do with you creating an account at github-MICROSOFT-NSA and naming it after some fascist bullshit 'meme'? 


> 
> I could have called this RayzerNet, which has a better ring to it,

	yep, but you don't need to call it anything. We can discuss the basic architecture without you using it as an excuse for your fascist propaganda.
	
	So, what about defining only the core features of an hypothetical system? 

	1) peer to peer - no 'directory authorities' 

	2) are all nodes equal, bandwidth wise, or are there bigger nodes that provide some kind of 'convenient' (and less secure prolly) routing services?

	3) virtual-circuit-switched, or packet-switched? Is packet switiching the most expensive and the most secure option? Packet size? 

	4) any other fundamental feature I'm missing?