On 17 Aug 2006, at 10:42, Evan Daniel wrote: > On 8/17/06, Ian Clarke <ian at revver.com> wrote: >> On 17 Aug 2006, at 09:58, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 09:37:02AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: >> >> I don't believe that the darknet and opennet will be weakly connected >> as you suggest, but neither of us can no for sure until we see it. >> >> >> We can know for near certain that darknets operating in hostile >> environments will be weakly connected to the opennet, and probably to >> other darknets too, for the simple reason that they CANNOT use >> opennet. >> >> >> No, but they can be connected to peers outside the hostile >> environment that can be promiscuous. >> > > Can they? If the outside peer is promiscuous, then it can be > harvested (with some greater amount of effort than for 0.5, right?). > So can't a hostile gov't harvest external promiscuous nodes and block > all traffic to / from them? Then you'd need a user behind the > firewall to connect to a darknet-only node outside the firewall, which > would then connect to promiscuous nodes via darknet connections.
Perhaps, in which case the solution is for someone inside the firewall to connect to a darknet node outside the firewall, they can then connect to opennet nodes. In this case the user in the hostile regime is still just 2 hops from the opennet. > That might be a problem... And it's definitely a way in which having > an open-net hurts the darknet (though I do agree that we have a > defacto open-net right now). I think this final parenthesized point is the key, we don't have a darknet right now, we have a very very flawed opennet. This situation will persist until we provide a decent opennet solution. Ian. Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc. phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060817/0974b9bd/attachment.html>
