On 6/27/06, Lars Juel Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/27/06, Ruud Javi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Do we want semi-opennet support? This would be a way to connect, with
> >mutual advance consent, to peers of our direct peers? (There would be
> >measures taken to ensure that we don't connect to peers of their direct
> >peers).
>
> Well, I am not sure but I am not a fan of it.
>
> Semi-opennet to me sounds like the worst of two worlds. The idea of darknet
> is that you need tot trust your neighbors, but you are pretty safe to
> everyone else. I think a semi-opennet would give a less safe network,
> because people are connecting to people they have not added them selves. My
> guess is that people would turn it on because it would make Freenet faster,
> while it would also make it less safe for them imho.
>
> Further, you would still need to add some connections, so this would not
> bring in the big user group that is looking for an opennet-version of
> Freenet .7 at all.
>
> If you have some special reasons/ arguments for this semi-opennet, please
> post. If you want we could discuss about if there should be an opennet in
> Freenet .7 , and how it should look like. I have some other ideas to get
> people to freenet .7 that wants an opennet. Unfortunately I am already
> seeing a few weak points, so other idea's might be better :)
>
> greetings,
> Ruud
>
It sounded really nice but I think you're right, this would be a bad idea.
Well, in my mind it's not really a question of whether it's a good
idea or a bad one in the absolute sense, but of whether it's better or
worse than people exchanging noderefs with random people on IRC, or
some other hackish way of putting together an opennet.
It's a lot easier to find 1-2 friends and connect to them and a couple
neighbors than it is to find 5-6 independent links.
Also, I believe this would provide better topology than the current
mess of people connecting to random nodes, even if it only meant that
each person connected to a couple random nodes and a couple of their
immediate neighbors, no?
Anyway, the goal is to improve things, not to hold out for perfection,
and this seems likely to improve on the status quo.
I would also advocate highly visible security warnings about it.
Evan Daniel
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
