EFTA01785607

From: Danny Hillis < Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2016 12:33 PM To: Jeffrey E. Subject: Re: The two properties that the Internet lacks are guaranteed quality of=service (bandwidth and latency) and the ability to know for sure whe=e a packet originated. These two features are fundamentally incompatible w=th the design of the Internet and they trade off against other features. F=r instance the second network I have in mind may well be inferior to=the Internet in efficiency of utilization of the resources , so it will co=t more per bit to send a message. It will probably be worse the than the l=ternet in supporting anonymity. So it it not a replacement for the Interne=, but a complement to it. On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 9:58 PM, jeffrey E. <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]» wrote: =div dir="ltr"> Forwarded m - From: Jeremy Rubin Date: Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:51 AM Subject: Re: To: ="jeffrey E." <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]» I've been thinking a lot about this the past few days, some of m= thoughts below: Generally I'm =ery positive of the notion; there's a lot to be desired from our inter=et protocols. On the other hand, I =onder if this is a variant of trumpism, we need to make the internet great=again. At what point was it great before? When their were but a select few=who were able to access it; and everybody on it knew they would be meddled=with a bit. Once it went too mainstream no-longer was being a hacker (or e=en, user) of such systems an at-your-own-risk endeavor, but was something =hat people depended on. Similar mod=rn endeavors include Urbit, linked for posterity https://urbit.org <https://u=bit.org> , which is mostly made inc=mprehensible for the point of keeping out the un-enlightened. Urbit is sup=osed to re-imagine computing as fundamentally distributed. I think it would require very close consideration t= figure out why a new internet is actually needed. Traditionally in CS we =hink of a distributed system as striving to achieve Consistency, Availabil=ty, and Partition Tolerance (see Brewer's theorem, https://www.infoq.com/articles/cap-twelve-years-later=how-the-rules-have-changed) but unable to get all 3 as they mutually a=sure each other's impossibility. If we add in a fourth parameter at a =econd layer of abstraction, let's call it Authenticity, a fifth, Priva=y, and a sixth, law enforcement, we cover the gamut of most of what people=care about in an internet system. These second three principles form anoth=r triangle similar to CAP, they mutually assure the other's impossibil=ty in some way. EFTA_R1_00107865 EFTA01785607 I think that thinki=g in terms of these desirable properties in terms of mutually exclusive gr=ups is probably a useful way to consider the design space. Another well kn=wn one is Zooko's triangle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo=o%27s_triangle <https://en.wikipedia.org/w=kinooko%27s_triangle> . In any case, I&=39;ve gone on a slight tangent. My point is it's one thing to say you =ant a new internet because of a theoretical (or not so theoretical) button= it's another to have motive enough to actually build such a new netwo=k. Asides from the button, what properties seem critical to you? On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 7:08 AM, jeffrey E. =span dir="ltr"><[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]» wrote: I liked the idea of internet 2.0 Q=A0 encouraged by the reset switch. Q=A0 please note The information=contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client=privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for=br>the use of the addressee. It is the property of JEE Unauthorized =se, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is =trictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this co=munication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or b= e-mail to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> , and destroy this communication and all copies the=eof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved please note=br> The information contained in this communication is confidential= may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, =nd is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of=br>JEE Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication=or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you =ave received this communication in error, please notify us immediately =y return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]= target=> , and 2 EFTA_R1_00107866 EFTA01785608 destroy this communic=tion and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all =ights reserved 3 EFTA_R1_00107867 EFTA01785609