Re: [freenet-dev] Whose afraid of the big bad opennet?

[Ian Clarke]

On 15 Aug 2006, at 12:17, Matthew Toseland wrote: On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 11:50:11AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: I did, and you didn't respond to my point.  Why do you want to force   users to continue to use the current insecure, centralized, and   hideously inconvenient opennet for a second longer than a more   secure, decentralized, and convenient opennet option is available? Politically, because the opennet is insecure and centralized, It is far more secure than #freenet-refs, and it is no more centralized than Freenet is already given that the software all comes from a single source. and because it is of no value whatsoever in hostile environments, In which case users will opt to create darknet connections, so the availability of opennet won't hurt and because the darknet will continue to expand, much of it (an increasing part of it) true darknet connections You are dreaming.  I would be surprised if more than 2% of the connections in the current so-called darknet are between people that actually know and trust each-other.  Why won't you accept that the current situation isn't a darknet by any stretch of the imagination, it is a centralized, extremely cumbersome opennet that probably doesn't conform to a small-world topology?  Failing to give people a proper opennet option is only prolonging the current unacceptable situation while significantly inhibiting Freenet's adoption. , especially as we sort out the current performance problems. (Which will be much easier to deal with while we are still testing darknet). Oh?  How do you know that the lack of a small world topology in the connections created through #freenet-refs isn't contributing to the problem?  As I see it, opennet may well remove a potential source of these problems. Technically, because I'm convinced that opennet will make a lot of things much harder. And yet you have provided no support for this claim.  I have pointed out that opennet is simply another way for people to establish connections, no more likely (indeed significantly less likely) to cause problems than #freenet-refs and other such mechanisms, and much better than those approaches in almost every measurable way (usability, scalability, user friendliness etc). Fortunately we will be able to simulate it in the not too distant future. We definitely should not deploy opennet without simulating it, any more than we should deploy token passing without sorting out its theoretical problems in simulation. I have no objecting to waiting for a simulation provided this precondition doesn't become an excuse to procrastinate.  Opennet must be one of our highest priorities. Ian. Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc. phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog

PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl