>>>>> "IC" == Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
IC> I am therefore not really sure why you are bringing bandwidth
IC> into the discussion.
Oskar's an inscrutable guy sometimes.
I think his point is that the main advantage of having multiple nodes
residing behind a shield node, compared to just using the shield node
itself, is that there's more disk space on the total set of nodes.
However, all those shielded nodes are going to chew up bandwidth
talking to the shield. So there's your bandwidth-diskspace tradeoff.
I think he was also saying that having multiple users point their
clients at the same node gives about the same security exposure as
having one node shield a node on each user's machine. They're about
the same in terms of known addresses to the world.
Oskar, correct me if my interpretive dance is off at all.
Also, I think Oskar and Scott need to have a powwow about
features. Scott seems to be totally opposed to 3 lines of unnecessary
code, while Oskar doesn't mind throwing in the kitchen sink, as
long as it's not used. B-)
IC> Do you think that it at-least partially addresses the "Media
IC> Enforcer" problem?
I think it does, partially.
~Mr. Bad
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/\____/\ Mr. Bad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
\ / Pigdog Journal | http://pigdog.org/ | *Stay*Real*Bad*
| (X \x)
( ((**) "If it's not bad, don't do it.
\ <vvv> If it's not crazy, don't say it." - Ben Franklin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
