Centralised is bad, spammable is bad. But in any case we don't have the technology to route requests to an anonymous central server over the network; that's one-to-one streams, maybe in 0.8.
On Friday 10 August 2007 22:32, Michael Tänzer wrote: > As I'm just a translator, I'm not really familiar with how exactly > Freenet works, but I had some ideas on this topic so here they are: > > I think a kind of public rating system could help, which stores the > username of the poster, and how many people classified it as > SPAM/annoying(users that are not spammers but behave (sometimes) in a > annoying way)/good > > As something like this rating system does not need anonymity itself, > just the users of it, one could think of a system that is faster than > normal freesites. > > The rating system could have a fixed address which is known by any node > but the connection to it is routed through other nodes (a little bit > like tor), this way there is just one place to look for the rating file, > but even if the rating system is compromised, the attacker can't tell > where the request originated from. On the rating server there could be a > database which holds the ratings and creates a file which can be read by > Frost. > > Pros: > -no complicated routing needed, because there's one server who hosts the > system > -no site inserts needed therefore less load on the network > -the current version of the file is always available (given the server > works well) > -just the first (about) 10 people need to read the (and mark it as) SPAM > and newbies will be read (unless they're marked as SPAM too) > > Cons: > -single point of failure (could be diminished if every node holds a copy > of the file in the last version it downloaded it (which it needs to > store anyway) so if the server is down the node sends a request to it's > peers and gets the last version available), if the server is down "on a > long-time basis" we are where we are now, but we haven't lost anything > -could be abused by spammers (marking useful posts as SPAM so the system > doesn't really work and is turned of by the users) maybe the web of > trust idea could work in here, so if people who are trusted by many > others (or maybe many trustworthy others (starting point: the > developers)) can change the rating more significantly than others. Maybe > even based on the own system: only people who are rated themselves with > good a couple of times may mark something as anything (or are stored in > a different field so the rating differentiates between trusted and > untrusted counts) > > > Maybe the special routing system could be used for similar services too > (once implemented) although I can't think of examples right now. > > Looking forward to hear your thoughts about it > Michael
pgpltwPDCTY5K.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
