On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 08:26:27AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 02:08:44AM -0400, 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. > > Whether the two are both considered "Freenet" or whether the other > network has a different name is just semantics.
Hardly. If you wed it to the Freenet network itself, you: 1) contribute to making it impossible for anyone but us to implement a Freenet node, and 2) make it impossible for someone to leave their Freenet node running if ordered to shut down their "Freesearch" node. In fact I think that if you tie this into Freenet itself you are directly undermining one of the project's goals: plausible deniability. "But I didn't know my node was holding metadata information on those copyrighted mp3s." "Whaddya mean, it's right here in plain text" -- # tavin cole # # "Technology is a way of organizing the universe so that # man doesn't have to experience it." # # - Max Frisch _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
