How do we "fix" the Internet? Is it too late to go back to pre-2003 Internet?

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Attached: maxresdefault_proc.jpg (1600x1079, 73.69K)

This is fundamentally impossible with the client/server model we use presently. Even if you browse clearnet with Tor, your browser can likely be fingerprinted even with everything spoofed and disabled, just by nature of the entropy you generate.

It's mitigated with Tor browser.

Screen resolution and user-side negligence notwithstanding, using the Tor browser means you're using a solution that's standardized and thus an easy and well-incentived focal point for exploiting.

99% of those exploits would target the regular firefox browser. Most fingerprinting options are off the table with javascript disabled.

Build a new one.

The only way to fix the Internet is to go to Usenet.

We can't rewind time. We have to find fertile ground they haven't ruined or accept that we live in the hell they create for us.

Let's hope Terry Davis gets that basic networking added to TempleOS.

Terry will refuse to do that because God told him not to have networking for TempleOS. Other people have forked it and implemented a TCP/IP stack and network drivers. You have to realize that's a mistake because TempleOS was designed to have no security systems.

Terry doesn't have the specs for the hardware to write drivers, so it's either use shitty GPL'd crap that the forks use, or to somehow buy license to the specs and write new ones. Since Terry isn't using his donation money, he might not even control it, I doubt anyone will buy the licenses to allow for developing the drivers.

Terry said there can be networking now. He isn't sure if serial is the way to go or if there is something better. Honestly, if someone would write a serial driver to allow commands sent from a TempleOS machine over to another machine with tcp/ip stack, I don't see how that could be a problem. It's just a simple terminal protocol. Of course speeds would be limited to whatever serial's max is, like 1.5 Mbps.

Newfag.

You don't know until you try.

The way to fix the internet is to build an entirely separate, non-IP based computer network. Whether people like to admit it or not, leaving the question of public address assignment to manual intervention (i.e. ICANN) has massively centralized packet transit between nodes on the network edge. The centralization is not in terms of physical layout, but in terms of who manages traffic, which determines who can charge what price for what service.

IPv4 in particular has also made NAT necessary, which makes it damn near impossible for the average user to set up something like a publicly-accessible customized blog. Even if they get past the setup process, they still have to pay their ISP for a static IP (or pay a dynamic DNS, either way it's money). Social media sites essentially fill in that usability gap, but that carries a more esoteric cost. These sites now act as exceptionally large surveillance / censorship / opinion-shaping systems.

What I think the key might be to a next-generation networking protocol is hierarchical relative addressing.

Consider this, imagine each node on a given network grouped into small "kingdoms" based on some distance metric (latency, bandwidth, having a direct physical link, etc.). Now imagine each kingdom grouped into 2nd-layer kingdoms based on a similar distance metric, and then do the same for a 3rd layer, a 4th layer, and so on. If each kingdom has a max of 16 members, then you only need 4 bits to address a node in the same 1st-layer kingdom as you. If you need to reach a node in the same 2nd-layer kingdom, then you would use 8 address bits. Reaching a node in the same 3rd layer kingdom uses 12 bits, and so on and so forth. Basically, the "farther" away a node is, the higher layer of a kingdom your packets will have to traverse, and thus you will have to use more address bits.

The good thing about this method is that it can support an arbitrary number of nodes on the network with no address space exhaustion, and it shaves some header bits off when you are communicating with nearby nodes. The difficult part about this method is address consistency. Internally in each kingdom, you could perform some sort of voting rounds to decide either an address arbitrator, or just the addresses directly. But what do you do if there are malicious nodes in the same kingdom? How do you stop another node from saying it is the address arbitrator for an extremely large kingdom when it isn't.

If anyone has ideas in regards to that, please say so.

Does it support an arbitrary number of layers? If not, what happens when you have a final layer of kingdoms with its addresses all assigned and a new device is registered in their area? Does it get assigned to a separate group or is a new layer created for it? If the new layer is dynamically created then wouldn't that mean you should take the 16 existing addresses in that layer and distribute them amongst the new, deeper layers?

I think at that point you might as well throw the grouping of addresses based on any factors out the window due to the fact that after awhile, the need to add and remove addresses will cause them to be grouped by arbitrary critera anyways, so you might as well just group randomly or in the order of registration for the simplicity.

If you don't like it you can fuck off. Or just fix is yourself, you lazy faggot.

I was thinking not totally arbitrary, but just supporting more layers than what will ever be needed. You could simply have another field in the packet (this one constant width) that dictates the layer of the address. With a 6-bit value there, you could specify layers up to 64th one, and outdo the addressability of IPv6 (which is already overkill by any measure). If truly arbitrary numbers of layers are needed, then variable-length encoding could be used ala UTF-8, but that's marginally less efficient to parse.

The idea is to never reach address space exhaustion at the very top layer. So if a new node tries joining a kingdom but it can't due to it being full of members, it will simply attempt to start a new kingdom, which _should_ always be possible.

Ideally, a singular node shouldn't be able to create a kingdom at any layer except 1. Only a 1st layer kingdom can elect to start a 2nd layer kingdom, and only a 2nd layer kingdom can elect to start a 3rd layer kingdom. When kingdoms are represented as a whole, it can either be done by using the node that's selected as an address arbitrator, or carrying out some sort of voting rounds. I have no idea how the verification for that would work, though.

There's a routing benefit in associating nodes in groups (like why we have IP subnets). If you know that members inside a kingdom can reach every other member reasonably fast, then you don't have to build route for every node to every other node in the whole network, just between kingdoms of the same layer.

Forgot to mention, the other benefit of grouping nodes in a hierarchy of kingdoms is that if a high-layer kingdom gets its address re-assigned for whatever reason, the communications internal to that kingdom are not effected in any way. Since all those communications will only use addresses of a lower layer, those packets in transit will still be valid.

So say you set up a home network, and give all your devices arbitrary addresses. If you connect that network to a larger network with this addressing scheme, you can keep all those addresses the same, but still access them from anywhere else in the larger network.

In other words, higher layer re-addressing does not cause recalculation at lower layers.

Furthermore, what this implies is that different networks can perform independent address assignment, whilst having the guarantee of a route-able address if the networks are ever connected. This allows for the construction of these networks to take place totally independently, which is why this network would be decentralized.

Why did we allow this to happen...

Zig Forums in a nutshell

You didn't take control of the system and beat back any one who tried to corrupt it.

Imagine if you brought your car to a mechanic and he told you this.

So you want to pay me to fix the internet? Great! How much are you offering?

You mean back when there were paid CP sites on the clearnet and people were totally OK with it instead of panicking?
Yeah, it's too fucking late to go back.

I offer you a cookie!

Stop using the web.

He mentioned serial port networking in one video. He specifically said it would be a network separate from the Internet.
But then in another video he talked about adding just telnet and ftp. So dunno.

Does anyone really care? I bet everyone who posted in this thread probably have a facebook, tinder, instagram etc, and are total normies. Maybe at most one weirdo that do not have any of them and is most likely a pedo

On the one hand, that was a sign of how truly free the internet was. On the other hand, that's the kind of shit that got the government involved in regulating the internet to hell.

I don't have any of those (not like I'd have any friends on Faceberg even if I had it) and hadn't posted in this thread before because it's unfixable. Fixing the web is like trying to fix a community after it was infected with normalfags: no matter what you try it'll never be what it once was.

If you wanted the internet to remain a place of free exchange of ideas, the only way was to get rid of americuck social mores way back when. Nothing else would have gotten the job done. But people here just sat on their asses and didn't say anything when Chris Hansen was throwing some guy who just turned 18 two days ago in jail for fucking his teen girlfriend. This is exactly the result you deserve. Now either live with it or figure out a way to prove wrong and rewind time.

Here's how you do it: create your own website!

Who is stopping you from creating the website you want to see?

You stupid nigger, have you been paying any attention at all the past 10 fucking years? Anybody who believes anything mainstream America doesn't like has their ability to spread their message hampered by not being allowed on big sites.

Eliminate social media. 90% of the worthless crap on the internet is dreck posted by narcissistic selfie-obsessed virtue-signalling imbeciles.

Why do you care about visiting the big corporate sites? I don't care about Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google, etc, and so I never visit them. I don't care if my website is put on some watchlist. Visitors to my website who get put on a watchlist isn't any different to how the Internet worked in the 1980's.

If it doesn't fix pic related then it's just another crutch. Might as well just go use I2P.

Attached: internet-tube.png (3508x2303, 552.51K)

Ah yes, let's rid the world of the things you dislike. That'll surely be best for everyone.

Attached: fox without a tail.png (1089x654, 1.07M)

i like aesop but the fox without his tail is not exactly analagous to what he posted.

It would, but what would replace it is something that can't be graphed very prettily. Major pipes like the submarine cables would instead be replaced by the link aggregation of a high-layer kingdom connected to another high-layer kingdom. Presumably, there will have to be some way to incentivise nodes to contribute to this link aggregation; something that informs nodes "if you don't route this, we aren't routing for you".

This further necessitates some sort of node identification mechanism, which does not need to be the same thing as a node's address. (If it were coupled to the node's address, then address re-assignments would basically wipe the history of how much you contributed to the network. Also, this would require node addresses to be as large as the node ID's, which would contribute to huge packet headers.).

I'm not going to pretend verification is an easy problem for this protocol. While the high-level description is simple enough, its worthless if there's no programmatic way to verify if packets you are receiving are not malicious.

In an another thread, an user mentioned that he would prefer IP addresses to be more human-readable. I think that is an interesting idea. We might be able to get rid of DNS altogether by doing that. Of course, the current highly hierarchical model is not very well suited for that. If using human-readable addresses means reducing hierarchy, it would partially solve another problem: privacy. Currently, if I want to connect to a mumble server, I need to reveal my IP address to the server owner, which I don't want to do. An alternative is to use a proxy, but that increases latency, which is not good for real-time communication.

In a flat address space, with highly dynamic addresses, this would not be a problem, as my address would just be one among many. The server owner might know the country or the state I'm in, and he might be able to figure out roughly the location I am in using timing attacks, but he would not be able to know where exactly I am or who exactly I am based on my address. Also, more interestingly, since the address space would be large, the ISP could give free human-readable static addresses to regular people. As a result, those people could host their own servers in their own homes. Since one's personal home address would be a dynamic address not related to the static home server address, one's home computing would not be disrupted, even if the server gets attacked.

My intention would be to separate different countries or states into their own networks with their own domains. This would mean that only that country's ISPs and governments would have detailed knowledge of a node's location in the network hierarchy. It might not stop NSA from locating a person in another country, since side-channel attacks exist, but it would hopefully make their lives more difficult, which is always a good thing. It would certainly add some casual privacy to every day internet usage.

Each address could begin with the network label, such as 'usa' or 'jpn' or 'lan' (for local networks), followed by arbitrary data. It might be good to give corporations their own "namespaces" so that they wouldn't steal addresses from regular people. For example, Microsoft could have an address like usa.corp.microsoft.221, where only the 'usa' would be helping with routing, the rest would simply be for humans. A regular person would probably just have an address like jpn.dyna.xjasd851lqkasnvasyuq, where dyna means that it is a dynamic address. I think it is important to use such namespace partitioning. jpn.dyna.microsoft is not necessarily an address of Microsoft, whereas jpn.corp.microsoft probably is.

However, I do not know how viable this kind of scheme is. If 5 bits is enough per symbol, we could have 51-symbol addresses if we use 32-byte addresses. In a country of 10 million, storing 10 million addresses in RAM would require over 300 megabytes. Since one person can have multiple addresses, and the tables would need to store other information as well, the routing tables might need gigabytes of RAM. I would imagine that is doable using today's hardware. The next question is, how easy would it be to keep databases synchronized between ISPs, since dynamic addresses may change quite frequently.

There are some developments towards something like this, but I don't thing the network engineers are particularly interested in privacy. The identifier/locator RFCs such as tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6115 seem to be more focused on routing and mobile stuff rather than helping normal people host servers in their own homes. Also, those RFCs don't seem to mention human-readable addresses at all. Note: Mobile phone numbers already lack hierarchy, so I think a network like this might be doable.

Use Gopher. A 10 byte line of text should have 30 bytes of markup just like God intended.

I believe the implication is that the above poster cannot into social media as successfully as normalfags, and so wants them all off of social media.

Why not make a service out of it, where you sign up for the Whatthefuckever Server, get a username, and get a list of 256 words that the user can pick out for himself or get assigned to him at random? Each would correspond to a number, so you could kind of pick out your own human-readable pseudo-IP address. Then you could tell John Q. Fucknugget to hit up Whatthefuckever.com/?u=User&key=FourWordsYouPick and have it connect to your machine.

Granted, it wouldn't be really good for stuff like a game server, but if it got popular enough, you could probably approach a newbie game developer about adding support for it to his wannabe Minecraft-killer, making it stand out a little and adding some visibility to your whatthefuckever server.

Is this a parody of RFCs?

I'm not sure if I understand what you are trying to say. Are you talking about a server that redirects connections to another server? If so, that would not help with privacy at all, since it would not replace the internet protocol. If you are talking about a proxy, then that would add latency, which is not necessarily acceptable in real-time communications or video games. In both scenarios, we're talking about a centralized solution whose owners could easily censor and spy on people.

why don't you join the lispweb?

ITT, we now have both a suggestion for a super-hierarchical network, and one for an almost completely non-hierarchical network.

Unfortunately, I don't think this one will work. The reason IP addresses are assigned using subnets is that it allows for routers to easily determine what the next hop for a packet should be (i.e. it's usually the one with the longest matching network part in its address). Without this mechanism, how would a router know that by sending a packet to this particular neighbor, that the packet is getting closer to its destination?

Without some sort of hierarchy, that means determining the next hop for a packet requires building a routing table for the entire address space, which is frankly computationally impossible. Routing in general is a problem where the execution time grows super-linearly with the size of the data set. It's made worse by the fact that the more entries there are in a routing table will increase the frequency of events that alter it. i.e. amongst 100 people, you might encounter a broken link every day; amongst 1000000 people you will encounter it every second. So your routers will be constantly be recalculating an impossible routing problem.

pedo spotted

Something wrong with pedos? Are you really this ignorant and hateful against other peoples sexuality?

what is that chacter from in your image?

Fix the internet

FTFY

Use VPN ->bridge->TAILS->TOR
even if TOR browser is compromised, tails will protect you. Even if tails is compromised, a good VPN will catch you.

Just use a local proxy that forces all traffic through the VPN as your TAILS gateway.

From here we have the highly unlikely scenario of TOR browser, TAILS, and the VPN all being compromised by the same people at the same time. In addition to this, you would need to access this malicious URL that's capable of disseminating your specific set up.

Bigot found

FTFY

Nigger, this isn't 4chan or tumblr you kikes.

You might find Ames interesting.
media.urbit.org/whitepaper.pdf

Yes yes, the good old strawman

wow yeah what a pedo

let me guess, websites are just LISP programs. your website can modify someone's kernel to add functionality to it

...

I thought that was zizek...is this guy the zizek of Zig Forums?

Abandon ship and make a new internet where normalfags aren't allowed to go.

Attached: 1410895836573.png (500x686, 486.65K)

Anyone in charge of gatekeeping this new internet is definitely going to let normalfags through, that happens every time. Normalfags are royalty and can go and do as they please, nobody will stop them.

kinda

Attached: rms.png (1494x1986, 379.15K)

The entire existence of "politics" and "government" is the result of using the system itself to both empower and constrain the gatekeepers. As an ideal they are simply the use of the system itself to gateway people and ideas. You're thinking about it too simply if you imagine having some sort of singular owner who gets to decide to does and doesn't enter, or some sort of registration or account needed to log in.

You just have to make the system itself so odious to normalfags that they CHOOSE to not go there, because they're normalfags. For instance: complete and utter non-function on smartphones.

As the degeneracy they spread heightens so too does their tolerance for it. We'll only leave when a better alternative to the internet comes along, and soon enough they'll shit all over that too.

IPFS-like systems are interesting
Gopher works

why dont we collectively switch?

>>>Zig Forums

Attached: fdef4f2ad1156dbccc09494ba9a66a69fa027bbaf137cd6909ef62b9a6930be7.png (912x919, 165.66K)

There weren't many normies on the web when it was usually Lynx running on your ISP shell account. It only started getting popular when AOL gave access, and SLIP/PPP became commonplace. That meant they could use graphical browsers and didn't have to know any Unix commands.
Actually normies have trouble even just running DOS programs nowadays. Saw this epic fail the other day: youtube.com/watch?v=MbLOkpCMh74

Attached: atlantis.ans.png (640x336, 3.71K)

Except he's right.
People love indulging themselves with nonsensical drama. Shining a spotlight 24/7 onto unstable attention-seeking whores is not exactly a good idea. Look at popular "youtubers" whoring themselves out for a few more views, ready to make the stupidest statement in a publicity stunt. And then you have the followers repeating the same pattern because "it's cool". This ever-increasing connection is turning people into a dumber, worse version of themselves. Between the tidepod challenge, people breaking their knees for a vine, the constant flexing, drama and bragging, or the "find a one-night stand now" apps, I really cannot see how the situation is going to improve for normies (regardless of how little consideration you may have for them, they STILL are a large number of the population and DO have a say in real-life policies). This is the kind of shit weaker people had no incentive to do before they were promised to go viral.
Nowadays, you are the insane one if you want to keep your privacy, if you don't want people to be able to contact you all day, if you don't want to communicate to the world that today you took the best shit you ever had. Social media (and their users) have normalized this narcissistic behavior.

stop samefagging, nigger

I don't know what I enjoy more, knowing that you're so butthurt you think that everyone who doesn't share your opinion has to be the same individual, or the fact that you failed to come up with an argument twice in a row.

Attached: SuperSmug.gif (480x270, 1.96M)

but we don't need icann