On Tuesday 13 May 2008 00:24, Evan Daniel wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Ian Clarke <ian.clarke at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Matthew Toseland > > >> 2. Most or all Freenet apps assume a few seconds latency on requests > > >> (Frost, Fproxy, etc), yet the latency with the sneakernet would be > > >> measured in days. Freenet's existing apps would be useless here. > > > > > > Not true IMHO. A lot of existing Freenet apps deal with long term requests, > > > which would work very nicely with sneakernet. > > > > Such as? FMS is pretty slow even with multi-second requests, do you > > really think it would be useful with multi-day requests? I can't > > think of a single Freenet app that would be useful over a transport > > with multi-day latencies, it would be insane. > > I'm pretty sure FMS is slow because it has a list of a few hundred > identities to poll for messages, and it only polls 10-20 at a time. > On a sneakernet you'd send all the poll requests at once. There's no > reason the delay on receiving a message couldn't be roughly the > one-way latency of the path. > > Downloading any sort of large media file can take days on Freenet > *right now*. People still do it. What do I care whether the 4 day > download delay is routing delay or bandwidth limit?
Precisely, this is the promise for non-hostile-regime operation where you may have more bandwidth over sneakernet than over your ISP's slow internet connection. IMHO it's a great way to build the darknet, and of course you can fetch the top few blocks over the UDP connection. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080513/b62ccf4a/attachment.pgp>
