On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 07:56:16PM +0100, Toad wrote: > On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 07:52:34PM +0100, Toad wrote: > > Suggestion: > > I implement multiplexing and test it on a local testbed of a few nodes. > > I don't implement any kind of backward compatibility. > > Followed by a larger testbed of a few volunteers' nodes. > > Followed by a network reset - wide deployment, without backward > > compatibility. > > When I say wide deployment, I still mean unstable branch - only the > crazy people. The stable network is left to rot until the unstable code > is ready, and then we merge the unstable code to the stable branch and > when users update to stable, they will transition over to the new > network. > > The downside is, of course, that routing will still not have been tested > properly on a really large network. HOWEVER given the current state of > the network I am willing to concede defeat on that one.
There is an anonymity issue too. It is unclear how much content will be inserted on a small network... this is a problem with any fork, and I'm not sure how to resolve it... maybe we could trade one kind of anonymity for another by asking unstable users to mail some traceable counter when they set up a node, and hopefully when they dump it? -- 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
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
