Mercurial > hg > anonet-resdb
comparison doc/www.anonet2.org/public_pod/faq.pod @ 97:5137f1e1cab7 draft
added more FAQs and a darknet comparison
| author | Nick <nick@somerandomnick.ano> |
|---|---|
| date | Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:06:38 +0000 |
| parents | a34c72e28c98 |
| children | 8c1074a9de05 |
comparison
equal
deleted
inserted
replaced
| 96:bd1d4b389d0b | 97:5137f1e1cab7 |
|---|---|
| 216 | 216 |
| 217 not likely, but people may /ignore you if you make a practice of saying | 217 not likely, but people may /ignore you if you make a practice of saying |
| 218 stuff that people don't consider worth hearing | 218 stuff that people don't consider worth hearing |
| 219 | 219 |
| 220 =back | 220 =back |
| 221 | |
| 222 =head2 AnoNet1 vs. AnoNet2 | |
| 223 | |
| 224 =over | |
| 225 | |
| 226 =item Why does AnoNet2 exist? What's wrong with AnoNet1? | |
| 227 | |
| 228 There used to be only one AnoNet. Unfortunately, a few bad apples (who | |
| 229 happen to be the guys who control AnoNet1) split AnoNet by forcing a part | |
| 230 of AnoNet to become disconnected from the rest of AnoNet. That piece | |
| 231 (AnoNet2) has been steadily growing, while "the rest" (AnoNet1) has been | |
| 232 slowly decaying. | |
| 233 | |
| 234 =item Is AnoNet1 dead, then? | |
| 235 | |
| 236 AnoNet1 is far from dead. In fact, it still has roughly twice the | |
| 237 user-base of AnoNet2. However, AnoNet2 has more services online, at this | |
| 238 stage. (Most of the old AnoNet1 services are long defunct, by now, as | |
| 239 are many of its users.) AnoNet2 has also been experiencing rather solid | |
| 240 sustained growth, while the AnoNet1 population growth is mostly flat. | |
| 241 | |
| 242 =item What's the difference between AnoNet1 and AnoNet2, then? | |
| 243 | |
| 244 AnoNet2 lost peering with AnoNet1 because AnoNet1 is too centralized | |
| 245 to avoid censorship. AnoNet2, therefore, is essentially a reboot of | |
| 246 AnoNet1, while paying careful attention to preventing another AnoNet | |
| 247 split from ever being necessary. (The irony, of course, is that the | |
| 248 level of decentralization engineered into AnoNet2 makes it trivial for | |
| 249 anyone in AnoNet2 to fork it. Such a fork doesn't happen simply because | |
| 250 "the management" hasn't made one necessary.) | |
| 251 | |
| 252 =item Who's "the management" in AnoNet2? What prevents it from becoming evil when AnoNet2 grows closer to the size of AnoNet1? | |
| 253 | |
| 254 AnoNet2 (like AnoNet1) has no official government. Unlike AnoNet1, | |
| 255 though, AnoNet2's technical construction is such that the unofficial | |
| 256 government members (primarily UFO and SRN, at this point) don't have | |
| 257 enough power to force their way (not to mention that they don't really | |
| 258 _want_ to force their way, anyway). A recent practical example of | |
| 259 this anarchy appears to be IPv6: SRN has made no secret of his strong | |
| 260 opposition to IPv6, but that doesn't seem to be stopping an enterprising | |
| 261 new AnoNet2 user from deploying it himself and even soliciting support | |
| 262 from others, even after "the management" (both UFO and SRN) flatly | |
| 263 refused to participate. | |
| 264 | |
| 265 =item Why don't AnoNet1 and AnoNet2 merge again? | |
| 266 | |
| 267 The short answer is that a number of people have tried to do just that, | |
| 268 but AnoNet1 has adopted an exclusionary policy towards AnoNet2, for some | |
| 269 unspecified reason. You get bonus points if you can figure out what that | |
| 270 reason is. (AnoNet2 has been very careful to avoid collisions in resource | |
| 271 allocations with AnoNet1, even though AnoNet1 has deliberately removed | |
| 272 its own record of AnoNet2 resources in a recent "cleanup" of the DNS. | |
| 273 If AnoNet1 ever decides to reconnect with AnoNet2, no technical problems | |
| 274 should result.) | |
| 275 | |
| 276 =item Why does AnoNet2 filter advertisements to AnoNet1? Doesn't that prevent the two darknets from ever merging again? | |
| 277 | |
| 278 AnoNet1 has deemed the filters necessary, for some unspecified reason. | |
| 279 (Advertising AnoNet2 routes on AnoNet1 is a great way to get yourself | |
| 280 kicked from AnoNet1.) Again, you get bonus points if you can figure out | |
| 281 what that reason is. (Hint: crzydmnd and risc likely know the reason, | |
| 282 but good luck getting them to spill the beans. Censoring the question | |
| 283 seems to be their favorite "answer.") Suffice it to say that if AnoNet1 | |
| 284 wanted to merge with AnoNet2, AnoNet2 wouldn't object. | |
| 285 | |
| 286 =item Do I have to choose between AnoNet1 and AnoNet2, or is there a way to join both? | |
| 287 | |
| 288 There's no need to choose one or the other. As long as you don't | |
| 289 advertise AnoNet2 routes into AnoNet1, you should be fine: their Salem | |
| 290 witch hunt against "dual citizens" seems to have died off by now. | |
| 291 If you're currently getting to AnoNet1 through the official AnoNet1 CP | |
| 292 (run by Kaos), simply switch to UFO's CP, and you'll automatically be | |
| 293 connected to both, so you can check them both out and figure out at your | |
| 294 own pace what you want to do. | |
| 295 | |
| 296 =item Which darknet preserves my anonymity better, AnoNet1 or AnoNet2? | |
| 297 | |
| 298 Well, AnoNet1 has stricter rules (and more centralization, as a | |
| 299 prerequisite to rule enforcement), so as long as you trust "the powers | |
| 300 that be" to preserve your anonymity, you get better anonymity guarantees. | |
| 301 However, your anonymity faces significant risk if any member of the | |
| 302 AnoNet1 "government" (which doesn't even admit who's who) betrays your | |
| 303 trust. (That risk isn't so far-fetched, incidentally, since any type | |
| 304 of law enforcement "sting-type" operation against one of those guys is | |
| 305 likely to compromise his guarantees, even through no malice on his part. | |
| 306 Now, since malice has already been observed, the guarantees become even | |
| 307 less reliable.) The AnoNet2 rules have more room for flexibility, | |
| 308 since centralized police authority is not available on AnoNet2. | |
| 309 Therefore, your anonymity guarantees are somewhat weaker, but far more | |
| 310 likely to be reliable. You also have better theoretical anonymity on | |
| 311 AnoNet2, because marking a subnet "reserved" on AnoNet1 no longer works. | |
| 312 ("The management" is too nosy, and threatens disconnection against anyone | |
| 313 who doesn't provide requested information.) | |
| 314 | |
| 315 =item Where, then, am I more anonymous? | |
| 316 | |
| 317 In the real world, AnoNet2 anonymity wins, hands down. (On AnoNet1, | |
| 318 any Easystreet network administrator can easily correlate IcannNet IP | |
| 319 addresses with CP IP addresses and IRC nicks, allowing him to reliably | |
| 320 learn the identity of all new AnoNet1 members. AnoNet2 has many different | |
| 321 ways of joining, including one rather interesting tor-based approach | |
| 322 recently demonstrated, where the user never showed his IcannNet IP | |
| 323 address to anyone on AnoNet2.) | |
| 324 | |
| 325 =back | |
| 326 | |
| 327 =head2 AnoNet vs. IcannNet | |
| 328 | |
| 329 =over | |
| 330 | |
| 331 =item What's IcannNet??? | |
| 332 | |
| 333 IcannNet is the internet (mis)managed by ICANN. It's what most people | |
| 334 call "the" Internet. | |
| 335 | |
| 336 =item What's wrong with IcannNet? | |
| 337 | |
| 338 The short answer is that ICANN is very highly centralized, resulting | |
| 339 in centralized decision-making (and centralized lobbying, arm-twisting, | |
| 340 etc.). | |
| 341 | |
| 342 =item Does AnoNet really aim to replace IcannNet? | |
| 343 | |
| 344 Yes, the long-term goal behind AnoNet is to render IcannNet obsolete. | |
| 345 In the short-term, though, it'd be highly unlikely for IcannNet to | |
| 346 disappear even in the hypothetical case where everyone were to move to | |
| 347 AnoNet tomorrow, since the overwhelming majority of AnoNet peering is | |
| 348 tunneled over IcannNet. | |
| 349 | |
| 350 =back |