On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 05:29:29PM +0000, Ian Clarke wrote: > Martin Stone Davis wrote: > >>1) Given the difficulty of circumventing negative trust will users > >>actually be bothered to do it? > >> > >It wouldn't be so difficult if someone else had already gone through the > >trouble of creating and distributing SuperFreenet.jar. > > How would SuperFreenet.jar manage to run a Freenet node on multiple IP > addresses? You must have found a part of the Java API that I'm not > familiar with. > > >>2) Given the benefits of circumventing negative trust will users > >>actually be bothered to do it? > >> > >Has anyone shown the benefits to cheating to be negligible? > > The correct question is whether anyone has shown it not to be > negligible. There will only be benefits in cheating if nodes are > perpetually overloaded, which shouldn't be the case once we have solved > the load balancing problem. > > >I think we > >have to take that on a case-by-case basis. In Tom's case, for example, > >IF (big IF) someone could create and use N IP addresses at the same > >time, the greedy user would get away with N times fewer QRs. Other uses > >of negative trust would have to be evaluated on their own merits. > > While people navel-gaze over theoretical issues the network is barely > working due to these load-balancing problems. I would rather have an > imperfect solution now than a perfect solution later.
Okay, who wants to run the central server? We can solve all freenet's performance problems by reimplementing Kazaa and ignoring the theoretical issues concerning anonymity. :) > > Ian. -- 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
