On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 08:25:37 -0400, Colin Davis wrote: > Jusa- I don't think this line of argument is productive. ;) They've had > this argument 10,000 times, and I don't think Matthew's position is going > to change. > > He fundamentally believes that ANY opennet system could be easily blocked > if the situation ever came to it. He has a good point, even if you don't > agree with him. It's much easier to block an opennet.
He is, of course, right. It is much easier to find a node which advertises its existence than one which doesn't. That is obvious and not something I'm debating. What I _am_ debating is that, as is and for the foreseeable future, the only way to get into Freenet is to get noderefs from strangers in #freenet-refs, means that you can harvest most of the network by just listening to the IRC channel; as is, Freenet is operating as an opennet, just a very inconvenient one. This inconvenience does nothing useful, and in fact hinders both network adoption and structure as well as makes it more easily harvestable (by concentrating all the node ref exchanges into a single publically accessible channel). > Your point is that without a critical mass, Freenet is of limited > usefulness- It's hard to FIND friends who use Freenet, which makes a > global darknet difficult. This is also true. Of course, in order for you to have at least three friends (the minimum number of connections to get an actual network and not just a 1-dimensional node chain) out of your ten closest ones (tell to less close friends you're running Freenet, and you're essentially running a public node) about 3/10 of the population needs to be running Freenet. Somehow, I doubt this is going to happen, even if the figure is adjusted for things like people selecting like-minded friends. > I don't know that having this same discussion over and over will being up > and new data, or sway anyone ;) Yes, you are likely to be correct. Unfortunately, this means that Freenet will remain in obscurity with insignificant amount of users, since very few people will jump through the hoops to get it up and running - and even less people will spend the time to maintain it (by getting new connections as the old ones go down), especially given the very limited content at the time (mostly caused by those same insignificant user counts). Oh well, I guess it's better this way; we wouldn't want various oppressive regimens to think Freenet an actual threat to themselves and put a horse's head into Matthew's bed, now would we ?-) > > > > > I look at it, and know that opennet is necessary for the darknet to > prosper.. Once Opennet is in place, people have a larger incentive to run > Freenet. This means that they add permanent nodes, which is good. > > This build the larger base of Freenet users, which we need to make a > darknet work. Two opennet users can talk to one another offline, and agree > to exchange a Darknet Link. This grows the number of links that aren't > posted about anywhere. > > Later on, as new users join, they're friends already ARE using freenet. > This means that they can exchange darknet links with people they know, > without ever having to run opennet. > > > Opennet is the key to getting a the installed base which allows darknets > to work. > > -Colin > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jusa Saari wrote: >> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 00:06:42 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> >>> Nonetheless the general thrust of Jusa's argument was that there is no >>> point having darknet. He's wrong. Opennet is a means to an end, not the >>> be all and end all. >> >> More to the point, I'm trying to argue that having a global darknet is >> not an attainable goal, and pushing for it will accomplish nothing >> except hinder Freenet growth and functionality. The chances for anyone >> wanting to join the network to have IRL friends already running it are >> nearly nonexistent due to the small amounts of such users currently in >> the network; and remember, you need at least three such contacts before >> your node is actually routing. >> >> And of course opennet is a means to an end. So is the whole Freenet, and >> every other computer program in existence, as well as the computer >> itself. >> >>> On Thursday 07 June 2007 22:34, Ian Clarke wrote: >>>> On 6/7/07, Florent Daigni?re >>>> <nextgens at freenetproject.org> wrote: >>>>> * Jusa Saari <jargonautti at hotmail.com> >>>>> [2007-06-07 23:23:48]: Implementing a workaround (opennet, >>>>> backtracking, ...) is only a way of fixing temporarily the topology >>>>> to the expense of both liberty (it has to be the default behaviour as >>>>> you pointed out) and safety (everyone knows that the opennet approach >>>>> has design caveats). >>>>> >>>>> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary >>>>> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" -- Benjamin Franklin >>>> Your use of the Franklin quote suggests that you are looking at this >>>> backwards. >>>> >>>> The alternative here is not between users using an opennet or a >>>> darknet, its between them using an opennet, or another solution that >>>> is far worse (such as a public proxy). This is the simple reality of >>>> the situation that we see time and time again whenever we bother to >>>> listen to our users. >>>> >>>> Consequently, by giving people the option of an opennet, we aren't >>>> inviting them to give up liberty, we are inviting them to increase it. >>>> >>>> Most sane people think teenagers should have access to condoms, but >>>> some people think its a bad idea, claiming that giving teenagers >>>> access to condoms will encourage them to have sex. The point, >>>> obviously, is that teenagers will have sex anyway, the only question >>>> is whether it will be safe sex. >>>> >>>> Substitute opennet for condoms, and darknet for abstinence, and you >>>> see that many of those arguing against opennet are following the exact >>>> same wrongheaded line of reasoning as those that disagree with >>>> allowing teenagers access to condoms. >>>> >>>> Ian._______________________________________________ Devl mailing list >>> Devl at freenetproject.org >>> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl >> >> >> _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list >> Devl at freenetproject.org >> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
