Will this be the real "new net"

If by net you mean Internet, then no, it is nowhere close to that, as it just uses the existing Internet in its entirety. It is just a shittier version of I2P (for example) as the mixnet routing in Betanet is "optional" and with some "ecash" token for "staking" (staking is just whoever has the most money decides the rules). It is really closer to an alternative/reimagining of HTTP/S

this is worse than https to be honest

as it just uses the existing Internet in its entirety.

Isn't it like independent? I thought the only thing it relies on is physical infrastructure

Isn't it like independent? I thought the only thing it relies on is physical infrastructure

The physical infrastructure, all being connected (and communicating with TCP/IP), IS the Internet.

This is literally, at best, a shitty alternative to I2P, and at worst just an alternative to HTTP/S; you could make an argument for being a replacement for the World Wide Web, but certainly not the Internet.

I saw the video for this new "internet" pitch, I think K0 is confusing World Wide Web with the Internet, Both are different things.

its even slower than tor bcz it calculates 5 hashes for like nothing and all of that gets enecrpyted on top like wtf?

I think this project is nice, but it seems confusing to me. (I don't want to say this project is bad because I don't know if it's a bad project tbh)

I think Betaweb would be a better name for this project to avoid confusion. (Just a suggestion) EDIT: I don't know networking much so take this with a grain of salt.

shitweb would be better

you could make an argument for being a replacement for the World Wide Web

Yes that's what I meant.

I think Betaweb would be a better name for this project to avoid confusion

Me too! (cause it confused me too)

People say the spec sheet is AI which it makes sense how, also I found it weird there's no prototype of Betanet. All there is a spec sheet and it's mostly made by AI allegedly. This is weird.

From only a quick read of the spec, it's pretty dense and incorporates a lot of really complex concepts like the governance system and HTX. This would make any implementation pretty complicated or overly difficult as there's no small subset or baseline to start at and grow from. On the other hand, how many different capabilities it provides gives it immediate strong use cases once implementations are available.

For me, looking at the technologies list (Good crypto, SCION, QUIC + MASQUE, libp2p, Nym mixnodes, Handshake + FVM + EVM consensus, strong anti-concentration measures, Cashu payments enforcing WoT, minimal linkability), it's awesome. This is pretty much a dream protocol and I'd love to see it succeed.

I have enough skills in some areas to start on or contribute work to a Betanet implementation, though I don't think I'd be able to get to a working state with the currently available information. Therefore, I'd like to see clearer explanations by the developers/spec writers on why specific technologies were chosen and which features of each it uses – this would help implementors greatly with picking certain client libraries, as many of the systems listed have varying support across languages and implementations.

Yeah that's fair Heliodex

I don't think I will look into this project any further tbh.

It feels like K0 (or other person in the team or related to the team) used AI for the spec sheet, then is telling other developers to do the work for him. That's what I think but I may be not right ofc.

In the "Explaining Betanet" video, at timestamp 1:15, K0 said that "the internet was started by a team at CERN", which isn't true, the World Wide Web was started by CERN. It is an understandable mix-up, but if you're promising to deliver a replacement to https, it is a bad look.

At timestamp 4:22, K0 also said that TOR has 3 to 4 times the latency of Betanet. But Betanet is a specification, so how can you even begin to compare Betanet to TOR? I also doubt that Betanet will ever have the anonymity that TOR provides.

At timestamp 4:22, K0 also said that TOR has 3 to 4 times the latency of Betanet. But Betanet is a specification, so how can you even begin to compare Betanet to TOR?

That's probably just what ChatGPT told him.

4:22, K0 also said that TOR has 3 to 4 times the latency of Betanet. But Betanet is a specification, so how can you even begin to compare Betanet to TOR? I also doubt that Betanet will ever have the anonymity that TOR provides.

Maybe he meant expected latency? They might've taken some guesses on that project scale

What am I pressing so I am closing it over and over