Quote from: Artemis3 on January 12, 2020, 08:31:15 PM

This is the reason why the idea of a network inside a network was done. Some call it "deep" but its just another network, that can run on top of internet without being checked, controlled or blocked. The whole point these networks its to break from these.

Internet topology is actually decentralized, it was made so it could withstand nuclear attacks. You cannot destroy something in particular to stop it, tho the lazy way things have been running lately actually could cause major disruption, to those who weren't ready (ie. already using Tor, etc). Censor resistance is one way to view it, neither State nor private entities should be controlling you.

Something on internet could some better centralization, DNS for starters. While not strictly necessary, few people know the IP number of some basic sites, in case DNS goes haywire. So you could start replacing that by not using the "main" DNS (alternatives do exist). And so on we could go with each of the elements.

If things go really bad, Bitcoin could go "deep", and it still would work running in a network that runs safe on top of the unsafe network. This scenario is already improbable on a worldwide level, its possible in some countries. A more proper description is just running nodes and pools as tor hidden services or their equivalent in similar networks (freenode, etc). But this is a worst case scenario which seems to have already been overcome. Still, there ARE nodes running in there...

Can you use internet without Google? Yes you can. It takes discipline but you can completely get rid of Google from your life. Centralized social networks are even easier, its only the stubborn contacts that won't just use decentralized alternatives.

Good point. Where there's a will, there's a way. With many alternatives networks & protocols available today, it's possible that one could interact with the Bitcoin blockchain under the radar of ISPs, and mainstream governments alike. The Internet is just a global network of interconnected computers by different means (LAN or WLAN). The average Joe could easily setup his own Internet by connecting different computers between each other. In the public Internet, one could use a combination of VPN and Tor (or any other alternative network) to obfuscate potentially identifiable information. The tech world is constantly evolving, and now we have ways to communicate off-grid without the need to use the mainstream Internet at all. I've seen how it's possible to send/receive Bitcoin transactions over radio waves and even satellites. You can also interact with Bitcoin using mesh network antennas.

It's true that we can use the Internet without relying on mainstream companies such as Google or Facebook. But we cannot deny that avoiding these companies, would make our life much more complicated than we've ever imagined. Sometimes centralized services exist to make our life much easier. You'd have to choose between convenience/ease of use or decentralization/censorship-resistance. Most people will choose convenience over censorship-resistance as they prefer everything to be done in the least amount of time (and in an easier way) possible. But you and me, would choose the latter option as we'd get to keep control of our utmost personal and financial information. As long as there's diversity in cyber space, there's nothing to worry about. In all ends, Bitcoin can still be used in a decentralized fashion even though the Internet is somewhat centralized. Just my thoughts Grin