Wait, who said something about usability?

nostr:nevent1qqsqahxr62ym856qkjqafapxq34r0t6h40lx2y2e3e70yn385gt5nhgpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtczyq26l8sz3kuju5x4gchltqm7m9fdgx5mc5s5n77753dlcrwv6lrdjqcyqqqqqqgf8zjrr

Nor I'm saying than NAT by itself is the way to achieve full privacy, but it's just a good thing to have, privacy-wise.

By the way, IPv4 and NAT are not responsible about the internet moving from decentralised protocols to centralised platforms.

'User convenience' and tech companies are much more responsible for that outcome, imo.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

> it's just a good thing to have, privacy-wise.

Please explain why you think this, bearing in mind the reasons that I have already given for why it is not.

> Wait, who said something about usability?

Separately, I am telling you why IPv6 is more useful than IPv4, because you asked what improvements IPv6 provides.

In your own words:

" with IPV6 rather than NAT/CGNAT, endpoints can distinguish different households and users"

🫂