(Moved to -chat) On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 04:19:35AM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I agree. I wouldn't want to be the only connection between 2 networks, or > even one of a small few. I simply don't have the bandwidth. Maybe a T1 or > T3 could handle it, but not what 90+% of the people using freenet would > have to work with.
To justify a T3 you'd need the two networks being bridged to be pretty huge. I do agree that there may be issues with fragmentation which we need to deal with, but I see no reason to declare defeat at this point. If you have two large true darknets with no real barrier between them, then as they grow initially there will be no connections between them, then few, then many, and the two networks will effectively merge. On the other hand if there is a major barrier between them, we have to deal with this; but the biggest barrier I can think of, that between the chinese and the west, simply CANNOT be dealt with by means of opennet because *opennet can be trivially blocked in china*. > > As I follow these threads I begin to see a core group of people that are > promoting 0.7 as the way to go. They have ideas about how it will work, but > so far I haven't seen convincing evidence to show how it's going to > actually do what they say. I understand 0.7 is in it's infancy, but it's > really premature and living in an incubator. It's got a long way to go to > be able to meet the level of use people are claiming it will have. There are numerous papers on the small-world properties of human relationships. Care to cite some of them to support your views? > > I was running 0.7, I'm in the process of changing OS on the PC that was > running it, but I did not like having to exchange information with someone > on IRC. It's the first time I've ever had anything to do with IRC, and > though some people are IRC advocates I've never been one. #freenet-refs is by no means an ideal way to get onto a supposed darknet; in fact, it's a fairly crazy way of simulating an opennet. We do need opennet at some point, but you would have us drop darknet completely, or at least relegate it so far down the list of priorities that WHEN (not if) freenet is banned in your favourite country, we will be totally unprepared. We need opennet, but we need people on opennet to slowly get darknet connections and migrate towards true darknet status. > I didn't know the > people I was connecting to at all, and the only reason it didn't bother me > was because I was simply provide a computer and bandwidth. If I had an > agenda, or a real reason to be using freenet, I would never have considered > giving out information. I was about as anonymous as if I had posted my IP > address on Google for everyone to view. On opennet, everyone (who is smart enough to harvest nodes) knows what your IP address is, and that you use freenet. They can connect to you and attack you. With more work they may be able to get more than one connection to you and make their job considerably easier. If you are paranoid, you should under no circumstances be using opennet - whether that be #freenet-refs or a true opennet - because it simply isn't safe. Not understanding or knowing how your node chooses connections does not make them any safer. > > It may be called darknet, but someone forgot to turn off the light. #freenet-refs is by no means ideal. We have established this. -- 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://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
