Precisely that’s my point. It fits a very small risk profile. People who is going to be ddosed but not by a big agent.

It’s not the most common risk profile. Usually ddos attacks are very heavy or doesn’t happen at all. These “half gas” ddos attacks are not really common.

I think that’s why when I read about Anubis is never in a context of ddos protection. It’s always on a context of “let’s fuck AI”, like this precise line of comments.

Some websites being under ddos attack =/= all sites are under constant ddos attack, nor it cannot exist without it.

First there’s a logic fallacy in there. Being used by does not mean it’s useful. Many companies use AI for some task, does that make AI useful? Not.

The logic it’s still there all anubis can do against ddos is raising a little the barrier before the site goes down. That’s call mitigation not protection. If you are targeted for a ddos that mitigation is not going to do much, and your site is going down regardless.

That whole thing is under two wrong suppositions.

It assumes that we sites are under constant ddos and that cannot exist if there is not ddos protection.

This is false.

It assumes that anubis is effective against ddos attacks. Which is not. Is a mitigation, but any ddos attack worth is name would not have any issue bringing down a site with anubis. As the sever still have to handle request even if they are smaller requests.

Anubis only use case is to make AI scrappers to consume more energy while scrapping, while also making many legitimate users also use more energy. It’s just being promoted in the anti-AI wave, but I don’t really see much usefulness into it.

How does it factor in the “free” and “open”?

It seems to be more about IP protection that any other thing.