Tavin Cole wrote: > > Freenet doesn't have to do _everything_ .. Let Freenet excel at being > one thing: a decentralized, quasi-anonymous, efficient system for inserting > and retrieving data by key. Then create another system -- a decentralized, > quasi-anonymous metadata search network. Let each network become optimized > to perform its specific purpose.
This was actually a method suggested in "Peer-to-Peer File Sharing and Copyright Law after Napster" ( http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/Napster/20010227_P2P_Copyright_White_Paper.html ) to avoid problems. But this begs a second question. Does the current infrastructure provided by Freenet allow a flexible searching mechanism to be added with little effort? If such a method can be added simply by taking advantage of the existing architecture then it would actually be better to do both within freenet itself. However, if the implementation of a flexible searching mechanism requires a significant effort that utilizes little of what freenet already provides then they should be separate. > Incidentally, it would be possible with the 0.4 architecture and perhaps > some modifications to support running distinct nodes of distinct P2P > networks within the same Fred. > True, and if these two peices of functionality are to be implemented separately, it would definately be user friendly to bundle the two together. Best regards, Martin Peck. _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
