Some Guy wrote:--- Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In recent discussions relating to how we deal with the urgent problem of load balancing, the answer to both these questions is probably "no" - meaning that negative trust can "work", in the sense that it will probably help with load-balancing, even if it doesn't "work" in the sense that it is theoretically invulnerable to circumvention.
Theoretic Solution to you Theoretic Problem:
Hash cash. If you want to connect to me you, and I don't particularly want to connect to you I
Problem solved. --- err I think.
There are other ways you can force someone to pay resources with hash cash. I'm just tring to
show that the problem can be solved.
I agree with Ian. We don't need to implement things like this now. Just note them, and be ready
to implement them when they're nessesary. To some degree just the fact that we can plug a hole
makes it less likely that someone is going to bother to try using it.
Hoorah! Well, that certainly sounds right to me. In which case, I'm now on board with the people who want to use negative trust.
This sounds like a good direction for improvement. I support anything that discourages frequent (random?) connections between nodes. In a healthy freenet, the rate of joins and leaves should be low, and the lifetimes of existing links should be long. Longer-lifetime links will allow us to build better info/NGR profiles on the peers. And it is easier to model/analyze a network with /relatively/ static links.
Can we share some URLs for "negative trust" education ? I found this:
(give it a chance, it's somewhat relevant) http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/Research/1994/SSBIA/94swi031.htm
(and here is a more relevant one) http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/aire/pub-repository/WAID02.pdf
I want to make sure (I,) we are all understanding this concept adequately.
ken
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
