Matthew John Toseland <matt...@toselandcs.co.uk> writes: > Applied to spam, for example, we could justify banning somebody by > showing some of his messages. > > Does it still allow for spam amplification? Probably, if we immediately > propagate inserts to everywhere. But maybe we can resolve the fight > within a few small random parts of the network. And the fact that you > can only vote once per darknet connection on any given key severely > limits the mischief you can do... so maybe it's manageable even with > full propagation.
How would we avoid having to interact with all inserts? >> Because it's our only source of scarcity. The whole objective of this >> part of the proposal is to create spam-proof, adequately-scalable >> distributed keyword search. Or distributed data structures of whatever >> other kind, where we can maintain the structure in a collaborative >> manner, obtaining a consensus, without having to poll every outbox and >> every fork. I agree that our darknet structure is our only real source of scarcity (but only in the immediate region: One malicious darknet peer can introduce an arbitrary number of additional distant peers). But I’m wary of mixing the darknet structure too much with content. For scalable keyword search we could already use the WoT and merge information from identities — with efficient transfer, because the data will be widely cached. What I’d be more interested in is to see whether we can use darknet connections with something like blinded tokens to allow introducing WoT IDs without CAPTCHAs while keeping the WoT IDs separate from the darknet structure. I’d like to be able to offer a friend who installs Freenet something which allows him or her to introduce a few WoT IDs. Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein ohne es zu merken
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
