>>
|
No. 3501
[Edit]
So basically, I have found this network called "Utopia", (https://u.is/en) which seems to be another P2P thing. On first glance it seemed to be interesting, since, instead of being just a protocol, it's a full suite of things like E-Mail, chatting and games. But it seems to me, that they are more than obviously a honeypot. I think you can make a rule of thumb: The louder and more repetitive somebody is about privacy and anonymity, the more likely it is a honeypot. This likelihood of something being a honeypot increases thousandfold, the more Edward Snowden and 1984 references the project has on their site. Of course this doesn't prove anything, but more interesting is their rationale, why they won't publish their source code:
>We may disclose certain parts of code, specifically related to communication and encryption. However, the decentralized protocol will not be released. Utopia is very knowledge-intensive software.
This is the same problem as Telegram. If your source code isn't 100% open, it might as well be completely proprietary. This doesn't apply to all software necessarily, but it's true for communication software. It's not to say, you couldn't hide malicious code in free software as well, but when a programmer or organization is particularly secretive about certain parts of their software (again, in particular communication software), it's safe to assume, it has something malicious in it.
>A lot of time, effort and resources went into this product, and we do not want to share all of our know-how as it will result in forks which in turn may result in instability of our main network.
This is of course just a stupid excuse for not releasing their source code, because in reality, forks should be in their own interest, namely decentralization. I2P for instance, has I2P, I2P+, I2PD and Kovri and it didn't hurt the project a bit. Actually the opposite is the case, since you can use each fork for it's own purpose. Furthermore, it decentralizes the whole network, which makes it even more stable. Frankly, I have no clue what they meant with their last sentence. Why would a fork, that creates it's own thing, "destabilize the main network". To me it looks very ignorant of reality at best and malicious at worst.
>Fork will lead to the division of the community, while our intention is the unification of the community of like-minded individuals.
At this point this could have been generated by an LLM as well. My best guess at interpreting this, is that they don't want people to jump of the bandwagon, once the project is heading south, which is of course malicious. A "division of a community" doesn't happen out of the blue, but for instance once some huge controversial feature is included, that people just don't want (see the Pro-SystemD and Anti-SystemD discussion of the Linux people for instance) or if the project is drowning in SJW politics like many free software projects these days. To conclude, not wanting "division of the community", merely means they want to be the final judge on how people use the network and the software, and don't want people to use leave, once their project starts getting shit.
>The bottom line here is that a lot of software is closed source, and this does not hurt them a bit. In addition, we will audit our code.
Haha, yeah, sure. A lot of software is closed-source and it doesn't hurt it a bit, which might be true for some software like...maybe WinRAR or mIRC, but there is general tendency, you know, that closed-source software hurts people, like described above, that they cannot change or remove unwanted features, but of course also in the sense that it spies on it's users. The bottom line here is that a lot of software is closed source, and it hurts the users a lot. In addition, where is your independent audit, huh?
Here is the FAQ, that I was quoting from: https://u.is/en/faq.html#faq4. I think, I explained well enough, why you should never trust those people. And if this wasn't enough, they of course use AI-chatbots and cryptocurrencies in their software, which is probably also a good reason, to stay far away from them.
|