I am concerned that the payment for starting a node would create an effect opposite of what’s advertised. Looked it up and the cost of setting up a node is more than all my savings. That absolutely deters an average Joe who just wants to contribute to the network. Who would want and be able to set up a node then? Either crypto enthusiasts or someone who has big funds already. Like big corporations and government agencies. Also if the operators of the nodes receive money, that means someone would have to lose money, right? Sounds a little bit like a pyramid. Maybe I am wrong, but the logic seems weird.
I’m not sure it’s a pyramid structure. To me what you have described is rather a service provider structure. In a pyramid those who pay don’t get anything in return, no?
Do you mean Oxen? Not all that many people use it apparently. I use Session messenger but it’s not super reliable… Although no worse than Matrix I gusss.
I do like the decentralised onion style of networking with no reallife identifier, for obvious reasons. There’s some crypto mining involved (like legit opt-in for which you need to set up a node, not something secret on the background) which may sound dumb, but imo it gives people the incentive to run nodes and widen the network. Unlike Tor where the incentives are… None, unless you have a specific reason to run a node.
Same, Session is great because it focus on privacy. You can contact people only by knowing their public ID but you don’t know their private ID which is used by the user to decrypt the messages. As there is no central server, nothing is kept outside of your local Session instance. Pretty decent to me.
Add comment