Ximin Luo ?????:
> On 13/01/10 08:31, VolodyA! V Anarhist wrote:
>> I think you've lost the reason why the original poster of this thread has
>> proposed FreeNS, that was because it's cumbersome to give out USK keys to
>> people, and it would be better to give some easy to remember name that would
>> almost definitely redirect to the specific key.
>
> I was responding to your question. In what way have I "lost the reason of
> [etc]"? The whole point of "names" is to make it easy to find things. There's
> no difference between typing/copying a string into the "search" box and typing
> it into the "fetch" box.
You've lost the reason of the proposal precisely when you've made an assumption
that you've stated above. The names are not needed to 'search' for anything,
they are needed so that i can give people my freesite address. Let's say i'm
going a presentation somewhere, and i want to say "and you can find more
information if you go to USK at somestringthatnobodywillremember/freesite/-1/"
that's not very useful, but if i can say "go to freesite.freenet for more info"
that *is* useful. Now, if i believe that some group of people can listen to my
presentation, go home and vote down my freesite's ownership of
'freesite.freenet' and put some horrible porn there with high votes (Playboy
for
example) i won't use that, and i'll be forced to continue to use USK.
>> The essential part here is that there should be a very high chance that the
>> name will mean the same thing in the *future* for a *different* person as it
>> currently does for you.
>
> Why should this be? The whole idea of naming things is subjective, and people
> will disagree on things. Anyone can call anything by any name; this should
> only
> carry as much authority (for me) as I agree to.
Then perhaps we should add a magic string that people can use to a KSK, like
many applications (frost for example) already do. So example.freenet will not
be
KSK at example.freenet but rather KSK at default|example.freenet and then if
people
want to start naming freesites from scratch without caring what is already out
there they can just substitute the magic string 'default' with something of
their own.
It will be like Open DNS (in the good old days) but on FreeNS.
>> If i suspect that somebody will have the possibility to disallow me to use
>> that name (whether because they believe i do not deserve that name or
>> because they think that they have a right to stop people from visiting my
>> site) then i will not give out the name and will be forced to continue to
>> use USK.
>
> This possibility could be reduced by social-network based naming schemes.
Of course. Or by using KSK. You've found one area where non-deterministic NS is
not unacceptable for end user.
>> Creating some very complex system just so that it will be possible to say on
>> freenetproject.org "We now have a DNS-like system. Thanks to A, B, C, ...
>> X, Y, and Z" is useful only for the vanity of those who did that work. Now
>> it's not a bad thing if the alternative (easier, simpler, and better)
>> solution did not exist... but one does.
>
> Hah, that is the furthest reason why i'm working on freenet and related
> things.
> Please don't throw around accusations of "vanity" just because it's an idea
> you
> don't like. At least explain why you think I'm being vain.
Ok, i've re-read what i've said above, and it does look like a personal
accusation. It wasn't intended to be that, and it didn't sound like that when
it
wsa still in my head. I'd like to apologise for this misunderstanding.
>> P.S. Yes i do understand that somebody could potentially start inserting
>> fake KSK blocks into the same key that was redirecting to a specific site,
>> and people will probably start doing that, but we are talking about abusing
>> the system... and not building the censorship mechanism into Freenet.
>
> This is naive and I'm surprised an anarchist would make such arguments. The
> law
> is "supposed" to be protective but it gets abused all too often.
>
> Why do you suppose that a social-network based system would lead to increased
> censorship? What do you even mean by "censorship"?
>
> X
The law was never 'supposed' to be protective. Government does its best to make
it appear so, but when you dig just a few inches under the surface and ask
yourself questions like "Why are police stations positioned close to banks and
not in the dark alleys where people get assaulted?" all the fud disappears.
I'm not against 'social-network based system', i am against a system that would
allow people to remove a name that somebody has been using. If your proposed
solution would allow some sort of 'automatic disambiguation' that would be
different.
Let's say i type 'example.freenet' and i'm presented by a page "1005 identities
believe that example.freenet is USK at 11111 and 2 identities believe that
example.freenet is USK at 222222, there maybe more but your node is not
currently
aware of that" then it would still be 'social-network based' but is not about
censorship. However, it would require at least one more click for a person
going
to a site, and some understanding that Freenet is really different to WWW.
- Volodya
--
http://freedom.libsyn.com/ Echo of Freedom, Radical Podcast
http://www.freedomporn.org/ Freedom Porn, anarchist and activist smut
"None of us are free until all of us are free." ~ Mihail Bakunin
