Martin Stone Davis wrote:
I think there are ways of doing what Some Guy (and I) want without excluding 99% of users who are interested in joining an anonymous network.
Remind me - exactly what problem are we trying to solve here?
Ian.
Ultimately, we're trying to solve the load balancing problem. Trying to solve that initially gave rise to solutions which required trust between nodes, else good nodes could be exploited. (I know that you think that the benefits to the exploiter are too slim to worry about. Instead, I think that each plan needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis to see how exploitable they are.)
Here's a plan I think we can all agree on: Let's first design and implement a solution to the load balancing problem. ANY solution. Just as long as it works.
Even though this will probably be one which requires trust between nodes, we won't worry about evil nodes at first. Later on, if we feel that evil nodes are actually causing significant problems, we can upgrade the nodes so that they pay attention to trust issues.
I hope this is clear. I'm saying: Let's forget about all this negative trust stuff I've been harping on and just get a solution. We can worry about trust issues later. The only difference between us right now is that I think we will *eventually* have to upgrade the system to deal with evil nodes, and you don't.
-Martin
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
