2009/5/13 Matthew Toseland :
> On Wednesday 13 May 2009 01:05:40 you wrote:
>> 2009/5/13 Matthew Toseland :
>> > On Tuesday 12 May 2009 09:33:11 you wrote:
>> >> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Matthew Toseland
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Tuesday 12 May 2009 00:45:54 Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> >> >>
her options.
And what the web of trust does is exactly the second option: it "load
balances" the content rating equally between all users.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090513/a5bcc0d1/attachment.pgp>
nature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090513/d9f342c2/attachment.pgp>
http://infinite-hands.draketo.de
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090513/cf0795b6/attachment.pgp>
part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090513/ff3ee49f/attachment.pgp>
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Zero3 wrote:
> Matthew Toseland skrev:
>> I have deployed the new wininstaller, for Vista/win7 users and anyone who
>> clicks on "Windows instructions". Win2K/XP users with working JWS will still
>> see the old installer for now.
>
> Cool! :)
>
> - Zero3
>
gnature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090513/427931f1/attachment.pgp>
e.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090513/2fe71f10/attachment.pgp>
amp; anonymity (as said in the roadmap).
If you have security issues with bloom filters *as currently envisaged*, that
is with the related caching changes, then please explain them on the relevant
threads (not this one).
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090513/d8752f6e/attachment.pgp>
o caches along a valid request path.
First, it doesn't shortcut. Second, the bandwidth cost may be higher. Third,
the negative security impact is at least comparable.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090513/4af9eb13/attachment.pgp>
ype: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090513/57ba399b/attachment.pgp>
t of the routing and data store algorithms, Freenet has a
> >> strong prejudice against alchemy and in favor of algorithms with
> >> properties that are both useful and provable from reasonable
> >> assumptions, even though they are not provably perfect. ?Like routing,
> >> the generalized trust problem is non-trivial. ?Advogato has such
> >> properties; the current WoT and FMS algorithms do not: they are
> >> alchemical. ?In addition, the Advogato metric has a strong anecdotal
> >> success story in the form of the Advogato site (I've not been active
> >> on FMS/Freetalk recently enough to speak to them). ?Why is alchemy
> >> acceptable here, but not in routing?
> >
> > Because the provable metrics don't work for our scenario. At least they
don't
> > work given the current assumptions and formulations.
>
> Could you be more specific? This thread is covering several closely
> related but distinct subjects, so I'm not really sure exactly which
> assumptions you're referring to. Also, do you mean that they don't
> work in the sense that the proof is no longer applicable or
> mathematically valid, or in the sense that the results of the proof
> aren't useful?
The latter. Pure positive only works if every user can be trusted to
continually evaluate his peers' messages to all contexts, and their
relationships to other users, and can therefore be blocked if they propagate
messages of spammers.
>
> Evan Daniel
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090513/25707415/attachment.pgp>
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 May 2009 04:53:11 Evan Daniel wrote:
>> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Ximin Luo wrote:
>>
>>> (one way of storing it which would allow token-deflate would be having each
>>> indexnode as a CHK, then you'd only have to INS an updated node and all its
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:28 PM, xor wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 May 2009 10:01:31 Luke771 wrote:
>> Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> > Luke771 schrieb:
>> >> I can't comment on the technical part because I wouldnt know what im
>> >> talking about.
>> >> However, I do like the 'social' part (being able to
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090513/913165e0/attachment.pgp>
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Luke771 wrote:
> Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> Luke771 schrieb:
>>
>>> I can't comment on the technical part because I wouldnt know what im
>>> talking about.
>>> However, I do like the 'social' part (being able to see an identity even
>>> if the censors mark it down it
non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090513/359580de/attachment.pgp>
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 May 2009 15:47:24 Evan Daniel wrote:
>> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Matthew Toseland
>> wrote:
>> > On Friday 08 May 2009 02:12:21 Evan Daniel wrote:
>> >> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Matthew Toseland
>> >>
> > > +
> > > +
> > ...
> > > Added: trunk/apps/simsalabim/DarknetRoute.java
> > > ===
> > > --- trunk/apps/simsalabim/DarknetRoute.java
> > > (rev
0)
> > > +++ trunk/apps/simsalabim/DarknetRoute.java 2009-02-11 13:53:49 UTC
> > > (rev
> > 25585)
> > ...
> > > +
> > > + public Data findData(CircleKey k) {
> > > + for (Iterator it = route.iterator() ; it.hasNext()
> > > ;) {
> > > + Data d = it.next().findData(k);
> > > + if (d != null)
> > > + return d;
> > > + }
> > > + return null;
> > > + }
> >
> > You don't check on each hop as you reach it? Is this some idea about
visiting
> > all the nodes on the route even if we find the data early on, so we can
store
> > it everywhere for better data robustness? (And considerably worse
performance
> > on popular data!)
>
> Its just a matter of implemetation. The routes terminate for different
reasons.
> When a route has terminated, the implementation checks if the data was
found. It
> corresponds to the node checking the message directly in the real node.
But you only cache it on nodes before the one where the data was found?
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090513/c04a19a9/attachment.pgp>
useful and provable from reasonable
> assumptions, even though they are not provably perfect. Like routing,
> the generalized trust problem is non-trivial. Advogato has such
> properties; the current WoT and FMS algorithms do not: they are
> alchemical. In addition, the Advogato metric has a strong anecdotal
> success story in the form of the Advogato site (I've not been active
> on FMS/Freetalk recently enough to speak to them). Why is alchemy
> acceptable here, but not in routing?
Because the provable metrics don't work for our scenario. At least they don't
work given the current assumptions and formulations.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090513/7f05868f/attachment.pgp>
moderately paranoid, and greatly
> improved
> performance for the not so paranoid.
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090513/80677e7c/attachment.html>
On May 12, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 May 2009 17:57:04 Robert Hailey wrote:
>> If the bloom filters are recovering already-failed requests, then
>> surely latency is not the issue being addressed.
>>
>> I thought that the point of having bloom filters was to
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090513/d9356ee3/attachment.pgp>
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Friday 08 May 2009 02:12:21 Evan Daniel wrote:
>> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Matthew Toseland
>> wrote:
>> > On Thursday 07 May 2009 21:32:42 Evan Daniel wrote:
>> >> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Thomas Sachau
> wrote:
>> >>
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Luke771 schrieb:
>
>> I can't comment on the technical part because I wouldnt know what im
>> talking about.
>> However, I do like the 'social' part (being able to see an identity even
>> if the censors mark it down it right away as it's created)
>>
>
> "The
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 6:28 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 May 2009 21:26:53 Ximin Luo wrote:
>> Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> > Is it a good idea to use MD5? I guess you're using it the same way that
>> > XMLLibrarian does, but it may be more of a problem for your application?
>>
>>
2009/5/13 Matthew Toseland :
> On Tuesday 12 May 2009 09:33:11 you wrote:
>> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Matthew Toseland
>> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 12 May 2009 00:45:54 Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> >> commit f86448d51c2e3248e1dfec513eefde50902aac30
>> >> Author: Daniel Cheng (???)
>> >> Date:
rubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090513/4253f94a/attachment.pgp>
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Ximin Luo wrote:
> (one way of storing it which would allow token-deflate would be having each
> indexnode as a CHK, then you'd only have to INS an updated node and all its
> parents up to the root, but i chose not to do this as CHKs have a higher limit
> for
On Tuesday 12 May 2009 21:26:53 Ximin Luo wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > Is it a good idea to use MD5? I guess you're using it the same way that
> > XMLLibrarian does, but it may be more of a problem for your application?
>
> you mean collisions? with md5 the expected rate of collisions is
On Tuesday 12 May 2009 17:57:04 Robert Hailey wrote:
>
> On May 12, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Florent Daigniere wrote:
>
> > Robert Hailey wrote:
> >>
> >> On May 12, 2009, at 6:47 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >>
> >>> ...
> >>> So the question is, how practical is it for a mobile attacker to
> >>>
Thomas Sachau wrote:
Luke771 schrieb:
I can't comment on the technical part because I wouldnt know what im
talking about.
However, I do like the 'social' part (being able to see an identity even
if the censors mark it down it right away as it's created)
The censors? There is no
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Luke771 luke771.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Sachau wrote:
Luke771 schrieb:
I can't comment on the technical part because I wouldnt know what im
talking about.
However, I do like the 'social' part (being able to see an identity even
if the censors mark it
On Wednesday, 13. May 2009 10:24:52 Daniel Cheng wrote:
In fms, you can always adjust the MinLocalMessageTrust to get whatever
message you please to read. -- ya, you may call it censorship..
but it is the one every reader can opt-out with 2 clicks. --- Even
if majority abuse the
On Friday 08 May 2009 02:12:21 Evan Daniel wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
On Thursday 07 May 2009 21:32:42 Evan Daniel wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Thomas Sachau m...@tommyserver.de
wrote:
Evan Daniel schrieb:
I don't
On Friday 24 April 2009 20:03:41 vive wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 09:03:12PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Wednesday 11 February 2009 13:53:50 v...@freenetproject.org wrote:
Author: vive
Date: 2009-02-11 13:53:49 + (Wed, 11 Feb 2009)
New Revision: 25585
Added:
Log:
On Wednesday, 13. May 2009 15:03:13 Matthew Toseland wrote:
Perhaps some form of feedback/ultimatum system? Users who are affected by
spam from an identity can send proof that the identity is a spammer to the
users they trust who trust that identity. If the proof is valid, those who
trust the
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
On Friday 08 May 2009 02:12:21 Evan Daniel wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
On Thursday 07 May 2009 21:32:42 Evan Daniel wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at
2009/5/13 Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org:
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 01:05:40 you wrote:
2009/5/13 Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org:
On Tuesday 12 May 2009 09:33:11 you wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
On
On May 12, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Tuesday 12 May 2009 17:57:04 Robert Hailey wrote:
If the bloom filters are recovering already-failed requests, then
surely latency is not the issue being addressed.
I thought that the point of having bloom filters was to increase the
On May 12, 2009, at 7:28 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
On Tuesday, 12. May 2009 21:36:30 Matthew Toseland wrote:
We are currently working on Freenet 0.8, which will be released
later this
year, and will include additional performance improvements,
usability work,
and security
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 04:53:11 Evan Daniel wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Ximin Luo xl...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
(one way of storing it which would allow token-deflate would be having
each
indexnode as a CHK, then you'd only have to INS an updated node and all
its
parents up to
Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 04:53:11 Evan Daniel wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Ximin Luo xl...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
(one way of storing it which would allow token-deflate would be having each
indexnode as a CHK, then you'd only have to INS an updated node and all
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 15:47:24 Evan Daniel wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
On Friday 08 May 2009 02:12:21 Evan Daniel wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
On Thursday 07 May
On Sunday 10 May 2009 20:50:00 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
Am Mittwoch 06 Mai 2009 00:23:54 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
Isn't using a reasonably low scheduling priority enough? And we already do
that!
Not really, since I can't disable it (when I want full speed), and it sadly
doesn't work
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 17:07:39 Robert Hailey wrote:
On May 12, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Tuesday 12 May 2009 17:57:04 Robert Hailey wrote:
If the bloom filters are recovering already-failed requests, then
surely latency is not the issue being addressed.
I
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 17:12:52 Robert Hailey wrote:
On May 12, 2009, at 7:28 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
On Tuesday, 12. May 2009 21:36:30 Matthew Toseland wrote:
We are currently working on Freenet 0.8, which will be released
later this
year, and will include additional
I have deployed the new wininstaller, for Vista/win7 users and anyone who
clicks on Windows instructions. Win2K/XP users with working JWS will still
see the old installer for now.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Tuesday 12 May 2009 20:36:30 Matthew Toseland wrote:
I will post this on the website tomorrow if there are no objections. If
anyone
can suggest any improvements, please do so; sometimes what I write isn't
readable by human beings!
7th May, 2009 - Another big donation!
Google's Open
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 15:47:24 Evan Daniel wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
On Friday 08 May 2009 02:12:21 Evan Daniel wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2009
On Wednesday, 13. May 2009 18:12:52 Robert Hailey wrote:
On May 12, 2009, at 7:28 PM, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
On Tuesday, 12. May 2009 21:36:30 Matthew Toseland wrote:
be out in a few days), and hopefully Bloom filter sharing, a new
feature
enabling nodes to know what is in their
On Wednesday, 13. May 2009 19:00:54 Matthew Toseland wrote:
We could pause most of the node relatively easily, there will still be some
background activity, and therefore some garbage collection, but it can be
kept minimal...
That would be great.
As long as it doesn't access its memory very
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 10:01:31 Luke771 wrote:
Thomas Sachau wrote:
Luke771 schrieb:
I can't comment on the technical part because I wouldnt know what im
talking about.
However, I do like the 'social' part (being able to see an identity even
if the censors mark it down it right away
We are going to release 0.7.5 in the near future, and then 0.8 later. 0.7.5
may or may not include Freetalk, and will not be delayed for Freetalk.
Schedule:
Wednesday 20th of May - Release 0.7.5 beta, at the latest.
Wednesday 10th of June - Release 0.7.5 final.
Major feature work should be
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:28 PM, xor x...@gmx.li wrote:
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 10:01:31 Luke771 wrote:
Thomas Sachau wrote:
Luke771 schrieb:
I can't comment on the technical part because I wouldnt know what im
talking about.
However, I do like the 'social' part (being able to see an
Matthew Toseland skrev:
I have deployed the new wininstaller, for Vista/win7 users and anyone who
clicks on Windows instructions. Win2K/XP users with working JWS will still
see the old installer for now.
Cool! :)
- Zero3
___
Devl mailing list
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Zero3 ze...@zerosplayground.dk wrote:
Matthew Toseland skrev:
I have deployed the new wininstaller, for Vista/win7 users and anyone who
clicks on Windows instructions. Win2K/XP users with working JWS will still
see the old installer for now.
Cool! :)
-
57 matches
Mail list logo
