After looking into this some more I completely agree with pretty much everything you've said. I love the idea of this project but if they want people to actually contribute and implement this it needs to be way more accessible and clear to what it's actual end goal is.

If this replaces the public internet then you'd expect there to be a routing scheme defined, if this is just a replacement to HTTP/HTTPS then that would explain why that is completely missing from the spec.

Suggested Change: Don't stay you are replacing the public internet, clarify the scope correctly. This sets expectations correctly and doesn't get routing protocol nerds like myself asking where the routing protocol is. c:

If anything this (to me and I am likely wrong) seems like an attempt to recreate what Tor has become. Using mixnet nodes to pick random paths for traffic and using a fairly new UDP replacement from google. I don't deny that it feels like a replacement to HTTP(S) but the way that some parts are formatted it is easily mistaken to be a request for a new OSI model from layers 3 and up which on paper is very hard to even layout. And as fcolecumberri stated using cryptography to hide who is who if done incorrectly could create a major security flaw.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. We really appreciate the support and engagement from the community as we build Betanet.

You’re absolutely right that clarity of scope and communication is essential — especially for a project of this scale and ambition. Let me try to clarify a few points about Betanet’s purpose and design:
1. Scope & Goals
Betanet is not a simple HTTP/HTTPS replacement, nor is it a complete TCP/IP replacement in the traditional sense. Instead, it is designed as a fully decentralized, censorship-resistant overlay network, intended to eventually replace the public Internet as a whole, including routing, transport, naming, and payments. The goal is to build a secure, privacy-preserving network stack that mitigates surveillance, censorship, and centralization risks inherent in today’s Internet.
2. Routing & Protocol Layers
Betanet uses a layered architecture where routing is handled by the SCION protocol at Layer 1, and transport protocols like HTX tunnel traffic over TCP/QUIC at Layer 2. The overlay mesh at Layer 3 uses libp2p object relay. So, routing is definitely specified and integrated, just at a lower layer than HTTP/HTTPS, which run at Layer 7.
3. Differentiation from IPFS, Tor, etc.
While IPFS focuses on content-addressed storage and Tor on anonymous routing, Betanet combines multiple aspects:

•	Routing with path control and disjoint paths (SCION)
•	Covert transport mimicking real TLS fingerprints (HTX)
•	Optional mixnet privacy hops (Nym)
•	Decentralized naming with multi-chain finality
•	Federated privacy-preserving payments (Cashu + Lightning)

This holistic design is aimed at both usability and resilience against sophisticated censorship.

4.	Design & Implementation

Betanet is indeed ambitious, and the specifications have evolved rapidly recently. We are aware that protocol design of this complexity requires careful iteration, testing, and community feedback. This first version is normative and production-minded, but we expect continuous refinement to balance security, performance, and usability.
5. Cryptography & Privacy
Strong care is taken with crypto — including a post-quantum hybrid model starting 2027 — and traffic indistinguishability through origin fingerprint mirroring. We welcome external cryptanalysis and audits to validate our approach and help avoid potential pitfalls.

It might be because im not the best person on this, im just a stupid hobbyist "web dev"... but this project just sounds like some web3.0 stuff if im being honest and all info (and replies to questions) the maintainers have seem very vague in their answers to me.

It might be because im not the best person on this, im just a stupid hobbyist "web dev"... but this project just sounds like some web3.0 stuff if im being honest and all info (and replies to questions) the maintainers have seem very vague in their answers to me.

I want to be clear: I think this spec needs HEAVY work, but I think it is a promising project with loads of potential. I would rather put energy into fixing issues and adapting it as needed versus otherwise. I am not an official maintainer of any kind here at this time, but I am likely going to fork it if they don't adopt some of the more important and necessary changes. If you feel my replies have been vague at all please let me know what specifically I glossed over. I am trying my best to describe my interpretation of the spec as I am heavily interested in it.

It might be because im not the best person on this, im just a stupid hobbyist "web dev"... but this project just sounds like some web3.0 stuff if im being honest and all info (and replies to questions) the maintainers have seem very vague in their answers to me.

I want to be clear: I think this spec needs HEAVY work, but I think it is a promising project with loads of potential. I would rather put energy into fixing issues and adapting it as needed versus otherwise. I am not an official maintainer of any kind here at this time, but I am likely going to fork it if they don't adopt some of the more important and necessary changes. If you feel my replies have been vague at all please let me know what specifically I glossed over. I am trying my best to describe my interpretation of the spec as I am heavily interested in it.

Of course, just seens like it explains everything very vaguely if they explain it at al. And the way they want to add a cryptocurrency into it just seems pointless imho.

I want to start by saying I didn't read the rest of this thread, just the initial post, and that's what I will be responding to.

These are totally fair points. Betanet isn't a replacement of TCP/IP and isn't necessarily an entire new "internet," so it's right to call that phrasing out because it is technically incorrect. A better phrasing would be a replacement to the web, as it is an alternative to the typical web stack (HTTP/DNS).

Look at the way we released Talon, our Windows debloater utility. I made a video showcasing an early indev version to gather feedback to then improve it before the final, full, actual release. That is the approach we are attempting to take here with Betanet. Betanet isn't complete, it's early and has work to do, but we released it now on purpose. We want to gather feedback and criticisms and see what people think so we can make changes and improvements based on the feedback before any full-scale implementations. It's not that we rushed the release, it's that we got a solid starting point, and now we'd like to collaborate with the rest of you to make this fully complete.

With that in mind, it's important to understand that Betanet does not fix media bias or replace existing websites. It's a different path for apps and services that choose to run on it. What's ready now is the overall protocol shape, the security primitives (which is standard and boring on purpose, as it should be), the mimicry/anti-correlation approach, and the SCION-tunneled bridging model. There's still more that needs to be fleshed out. It's different from something like VPNs or IPFS because VPNs can be spotted through SNI/SPI inspection and metadata is visible to the VPN operator, and with IPFS, router traffic is still visible as HTTP/2 or QUIC with IPFS signature frames, making it easy to fingerprint, and it has no built-in link-layer path diversity or payments.

But, your criticism and feedback is understandable and I even agree with some of it. We have work to do, but don't dismiss us because of that. If you believe in the idea of Betanet and the potential for it to be great, then help us make it a reality. We'd surely appreciate the help.