> I had a mad idea (feel free to point and laugh...) I think this is a great idea, or at least some variant thereof.
I'm not so sure about fuse=0 causing Tit-for-Tat. It won't be quite so clear cut as that. You can't just say that if you send a message to a request to a node and the request fails that the node is misbehaving. The request might be for something not in the network or not in the specified HTL. It might have been dropped out of the network because there was a flood of information, or it was unpopular, or because the node was leeching, or because the node was behaving well, but the nodes it was connected to are leeching. You're lumping a lot of possibilities into a single transaction. It's important to remember that you can never deal with a node by itself. When you're dealing with a node, you're really dealing with the part of the network reachable from that node in the given HTL. But we certainly could use some way to rank the usefulness of different nodes/parts of the network and communicate more with those that are more useful. The only way we're going to get Freenet to be ubiquitous is to add some incentive (i.e. better service from the network) for running a useful node. _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
