On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 06:52:24AM +0000, Thomas Bruderer wrote: > > Why not implement proper opennet? Your stated objection was > > previously based on something Oskar apparently said, or didn't say, > > but he now seems to think we should do it (in fact, I think this was > > always his opinion). > > I always was in favour of an opennet, and I dont like the idea of a > semi-opennet. I think this idea only came up because some are against an > opennet > in general. In fact its just a hack: and most here on the list uttered no > satisfaction about all those hacks which made it easier to connect to each > other...
It's a way for people to get more connections, at some cost in security, but without the network being harvestable, and without eliminating the incentives for adding more darknet peers. However I am of the view that making it easy for people to manually connect in true darknet fashion, possibly including internal introductions (which would be verified out of band but completed in band; they solve the problem "i don't know which of my friends are running it"), are important, because they build a true darknet, and we NEED a true darknet, even if we have an opennet as well, because as has been made increasingly clear on the chat list, we have a limited amount of time left during which freenet will be tolerated anywhere! > > sidekick to nextgens: is this message from Ian clearly enough stated? > > > I agree that we need to simulate it to ensure that destination > > sampling (aka LRU) can co-exist with location swapping, but that > > should be a relatively straight-forward simulation, Oskar may even do > > it for us > > One intersting note: > > Toad states: if there is an opennet, nobody would use the darknet... > > Well if there is no need for a darknet, why we talk about it? Either there is > a > need, and it was good you built a darknet. Or nobody wants a darknet and there > never will be success with darknet. We need a darknet because an opennet can be harvested and blocked, or harvested and attacked with polymorphic ubernodes. I believe that a darknet can grow organically, and reach a decent size, and probably exponentially, once it has a reasonable level of content etc. It is probably easier to solve some of the big problems on a darknet, and it is definitely necessary to have a large true darknet before other countries follow China and France in blocking or banning freenet! > > If really nobody wants to use darknet, whats the point in keeping it with all > forces? See above. > > In fact I think toad is right, but my conclusion is completly different. Three > months of 0.7 leads me to the conclusion that darknet is not a killer feature. It's not a killer feature in terms of attracting users. However it is required for the future survivability of Freenet, and I believe it is feasible. -- 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/20060628/7d3f2bd9/attachment.pgp>
