On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 12:16:34PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > > 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.
There is a limited supply of friendly westerners, and there is also a limited intersection of content between the two networks. If the network is to work well for the chinese then it will have to scale *internally*, so that people can add their friends without rapidly slowing down their own access. What you suggest is analogous to me running a proxy for a few of my chinese friends; if they connect their friends to that proxy, and their friends connect their friends, pretty soon it is intolerably slow. You need a large network with lots of internal nodes connected to each other, and relatively few external connections. > > >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. True, we have a flawed opennet with some darknet links. > > Ian. -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060817/9d972b5e/attachment.pgp>
