Well, the problem is that users who start off with nodes from the seednodes would have bad performance. The solution is to implement a full hybrid network with path folding on the open portions of the network. The problem with that is that there is little incentive to migrate to the darknet, and with a hybrid, we have no information on whether the darknet can work on its own.
I am still of the view that we will have to provide an opennet and a darknet. If people want to fork and make a hybrid, that's fine. The darknet should be more or less invulnerable to the slashdot effect, it will initially be a small network and therefore fast, and as it gets larger it will have more opportunities for growth. On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 02:58:09PM +0200, Alex R. Mosteo wrote: > [Moved from support to general] > > Matthew Toseland wrote: > > I'm not interested in the degenerate case of 10 people who all know each > > other and all connect to each other. I'm interested in scalable > > darknets. Which are graphs of people, which can be large, where I > > connect to my friends and my friend connects to his friends. > > It's ok. I'm not arguing nothing about this. > > >>I frankly have a hard time figuring how this can be achieved. When 0.7 > >>is out I guess you and Ian will be the only persons I could ask for > >>their references, and how would you trust me? What if I have a single > >>trusted reference, and he's not 24/7 online? > > > > As I have said, strong trust is not required at this stage. Anyone I've > > ever argued with at length on email or IRC would probably be a > > candidate. At least as far as getting the topology right goes. > > So probably the initial 0.7 darknet will be composed of people in this > list and related chat channels/forums. > > If strong trust is not required at this stage, I would ditch all the > opennet effort. Why is it not required, btw? > > So, what about this: we use something like GWebCache2 to get untrusted > links. People can volunteer his nodes to be known (harvestable) in > countries where this poses small risk currently. Simultaneously, > everybody must work towards finding trusted links. Once you have enough > (how many would be enough?) you change your listening port and reject > untrusted links. So you go under the radar. The idea would be for the > darknet to "virally" posess the opennet area. > > So you would have nodes in three states: > > Nodes with all trusted links. These would form the core darknet, with > proper topology. Initially the people most devoted to freenet. The inner > ring of Atlantida, one could say ;) > > Nodes with a mix of trusted/untrusted. These would be in a transitional > stage. > > Nodes with only untrusted, obtained from webcache, links. These would be > newcomers. The topology here would be uncertain and routing would work > worse, I guess. > > Now, instead of saying that your node must be up for a week before > getting well integrated, we'd say that you must get trusted links. > > I suppose this is prone to be simulated, unless I'm talking nonsense due > to ignorance. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
