yep. :-) the whole idea is to make altruistic behaviour in the interests of any given node.
i really have to publish my punknet concept - its a public key version of essentially the same kind of animal as freenet, i think the two could work in concert (i have no wish to compete with freenet - see the value of altruism! - but i think they each have different pros and cons). when spare time[tm] comes round i will start contributing in a code sense. back to lurking.... jon. > > (apologies if this has been sent twice, my machine is misbehaving and the > logs are inconclusive...) > > I had a mad idea (feel free to point and laugh...) > > Freenet is co-operating system of entities who do not trust trust each > other. The system depends on these entities providing a mutual service > without cheating. The service is allowing other nodes to use your datastore > and bandwidth. A node wants to use the datastore and bandwidth of the other > nodes in Freenet, but (if it is a selfish node) does not want to provide > datastore and bandwidth itself. This is a classic case of iterated > prisoners' dilemma: > > co-operation is sharing your datastore and bandwidth in the form of > Data.Replys > defection is exploting another node's datastore and bandwidth in the form of > Data.Requests > (I'm not sure where inserts fit in this scheme - more later) > > The payoff for co-operation is a healthy Freenet, full of useful > information. > The payoff for mutual defection is an empty Freenet, full of unsatisfied > leeches. > The payoff for co-operating when the other node is defecting is that your > services are leeched - how you see this outcome depends on how altruistic > you are. > > The well-known stratergy for prisoners' dilemma is Tit for Tat. > > I propose that nodes should keep a record of the ratio of requests/replys > from each node they hold a refrence to. This ratio can be modified by some > parameters (more later). This ratio can be used to modify the rate at which > messages are dropped (assiming a probablistic replacement for TTL as some > have proposed previously). The ratio is then used to reward nodes which are > a data source and punish nodes which are a data sink. The ratio could be > modified by two parameters: altruism and fuse. > > altruism would effect the degree to which the request/reply ratio caused > packets to be dropped. > fuse is the damping factor in a moving average/1 pole filter which determes > how long our fuse/temper is. the higher the damping factor the longer it > takes for changes in the relative rates of request/reply messages to cause > change in our packet dropping behaviour. > > If you set altruism to 1.0 and fuse to 0.0 you get pure Tit for Tat. If you > set fuse to 1.0 you are wholly altruistic (current behaviour) > > Just a mad idea.. > > > _______________________________________________ > Freenet-dev mailing list > Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev > _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
