I think, given that even without testnet, there still isn't any real anonymity, we should keep testnet on by default to prevent anyone getting the wrong idea, and to avoid fragmenting our userbase.
Ian. On 17 Feb 2006, at 12:33, Matthew Toseland wrote: > Should I make testnet support optional yet? This would allow for the > creation of real darknets. Testnet nodes allow developers to log in > remotely and fetch logs, force log level to minor, keep the last > 1GB of > compressed logs, regularly upload status to a central monitor, and > cannot talk to non-testnet nodes. > > 0.7's memory usage is sufficiently low that IMHO many people may well > run both testnet and real darknet nodes. So hopefully it wouldn't be a > huge drain...? > > The problem is that 0.7 does not yet have any real security... > - Fproxy does not filter anything. > - Connection setup is vulnerable to MITM. > - Requests are vulnerable to a whole range of attacks. > > So the question is, should I keep testnet forced to "on" for the time > being? > -- > Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org > Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ > ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
