On 30/11/15 15:48, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Matthew Toseland <mj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> 3. Opennet is not secure unless users pay for introduction. > Who would they pay, and how would this be implemented in a decentralized > way? In the first instance they would pay *us* via a Kickstarter. In the long run there might be other options e.g. provable sacrifice of Bitcoins. > Given that we already have a shrinking userbase despite Freenet being free, > why do you think people will be willing to pay to use it? Won't this > dramatically shrink our userbase to a tiny core of enthusiasts, which will > provide far less cover traffic and thus reduce security? No, because it won't happen unless we get at least 10,000 users/donors. Isn't there a "we won't charge you unless we raise the minimum" thing for Kickstarter?
And people could still use Freenet in transient mode. In fact we might even allow an intermediate mode: Routes traffic but not tunnels and high priority traffic. But they wouldn't get good performance unless they become a core infrastructure opennet node. > Opennet tunnels via ShadowWalker. > > Isn't Freenet already extremely slow? Wouldn't this just slow it down a > lot further? Not if we jettison the slower opennet nodes, which is also part of the proposal. A lot of our performance issues are actually because we target an outdated lowest common denominator. IMHO tunnels would have a marginal effect on performance anyway, since they'd only be 2 or 3 hops. With the exception of *really* popular stuff, we generally find stuff in around 7 hops, so that's potentially a 30% performance loss, but we could get some of it back by tweaks to things that aren't necessary once we have tunnels. But see above. > Ian.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
