On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 08:49:22AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > > > >I'd much rather we only have darknet, opennet will be less secure and > >less robust, a somewhat acceptable price for the ease of use, the > >unacceptable part of the price is how much it will hurt the darknet by > >taking all the users but those who truely neet it away. > > Why do you assume the two would be mutually exclusive? > > You assume that if we deny people the opportunity to connect to an > opennet, then they will join the darknet - but this simply isn't what > we are seeing in practice. If we deny people opennet functionality, > then they create their own opennet using public link exchange > mechanisms which are cumbersome, extremely easy to compromise, and > lead to poor network topology.
No, he's saying give darknet a chance. We haven't solved many of the basic problems yet, and they'll be easier to solve on darknet. If we give users a choice between an officially sanctioned and therefore hopefully secure opennet, and an officially sanctioned darknet, they will choose opennet in general, because the network is so small. If we are to implement opennet we need to be absolutely clear what the advantages of getting true darknet connections are, we need to make it really easy to do so, and we need to maximize those advantages. And IMHO we need to sort out load balancing and storage first on a darknet. > > 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/20060628/fa799638/attachment.pgp>
