On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 05:00:50PM +0100, Kevin Steen wrote: > At 16/10/2003 16:33, you wrote: > >On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 01:21:55AM +1000, fish wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 04:01:04PM +0100, Toad wrote: > >> > On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 12:12:11PM +1000, fish wrote: > >> > > Hrm, how would this effect uses who are stuck behind NAT's that > they are > >> > > not in a position to work around (and hence a node can never open a > >connection > >> > > to)? > >> > > >> > They would not be able to make queries. Their network topology forces > >> > them to be freeloaders, and we should treat them as such. Or so the > >> > argument goes. > >> > >> As one of the users who is stuck in this situation, I'm sure everyone > >> understands why I view that argument with a small amount of hostility, > >> right? > >> > >> [hostile statement removed upon reconsideration. To sum it up in a > >> non-hostile fashion, while I understand that drastic measures may be > >> nessesary to fix the routing issues that freenet is currently > experiencing, > >> do you seriously believe that throwing off everyone with shitty > connectivity > >> is the solution? I'll accept it if this is seriously believed, right, > but > >> i'm sure everyone understands that I don't really wish to be thrown off > >> freenet, despite the voices in my head sometimes telling me otherwise > :-p] > >> > >> -- jj > > > >I don't know. I do know that one powerful attack on Freenet would be to > >distribute the One True Killer App (after Freenet has gotten reasonably > >fast, reliable etc), with a built in but purely transient node. If it > >got popular freenet would quickly disappear under what amounted to a > >massive DDoS. I believe it is possible to circumvent firewalls that only > >allow outbound connections, as I have explained elsewhere. It's a > >question of what priority do we give to it at this stage? Also, we can't > >do it before multiplexing anyway for various reasons. > > How about limiting freeloaders to some percentage of our outbound > bandwidth? (Or, once we have multiplexing, to some configurable percentage > of our total number of connections.) I don't want to support freeloaders, > but I think it's important that access to information in Freenet is > available even to those unable to contribute.
Perhaps... it's complex, new but hopefully useful nodes for example have not usually contributed much - we can't really have any cast iron guarantees w.r.t. whether a node is doing its share. Maybe the way to go is to ensure that freeloaders are deprioritized and don't get good performance - but when we are overloaded, of course, that means not serving them at all. Also, we have to think of our target audience - the controversial document might have been inserted from a transient node in a cybercafe precisely because the user doesn't want it to be tied to a fixed node, or doesn't have time to set up a perm node... > > -Kevin -- 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
