On 14/01/10 14:58, VolodyA! V Anarhist wrote: > 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.
There's a sliding scale between "search" and "fetch" - it's not called a "DNS query" for no reason. The place in the scale is dependent on several factors, such as how much authority you can place in the address. For SSK/CHK the authority comes from mathematics, for KSK redirections there is no such authority. > 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. But these are still absolute universal names. Sometimes by convention, everyone agrees to the same thing. Then in the future these conventions may fall apart, either by mutual consent, or by attack. KSKs redirects would be the latter. > 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. Thank you :) > 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. ahh i cba arguing this point right now, it's off-topic anyway. > 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. This is basically what I suggested - did you read my emails? My argument has been that (returning multiple results) is the only way to have a name system which is "socially fair" (hand-waving here). There are still issues with this, such as the remote/remote problem I mentioned, but I think the general approach is sound. X
