Re: Some ideas on Freenet architecture

2017-11-01 Thread Arne Babenhauserheide
Matthew John Toseland writes: > On 16/09/17 08:31, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >> >> Matthew John Toseland writes: >>> The above is slightly inaccurate. For a genuine user, the third step >>> starts off as a bundle, then later becomes a

Re: Some ideas on Freenet architecture

2017-09-16 Thread Matthew John Toseland
On 16/09/17 08:31, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > Matthew John Toseland writes: >> The above is slightly inaccurate. For a genuine user, the third step >> starts off as a bundle, then later becomes a broadcast. We enforce the >> scarcity and popularity requirements in

Re: Some ideas on Freenet architecture

2017-09-16 Thread Arne Babenhauserheide
Matthew John Toseland writes: > The above is slightly inaccurate. For a genuine user, the third step > starts off as a bundle, then later becomes a broadcast. We enforce the > scarcity and popularity requirements in both stages. Doesn’t enforcing scarcity at the bundle

Re: Some ideas on Freenet architecture

2017-09-15 Thread Matthew John Toseland
On 15/09/17 20:51, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > Matthew John Toseland writes: >> Specifically, the process for a scarce *insert* will be: >> 1) Is the key popular?? We can tell this from how many peers are >> subscribed to it in the ULPR table. If not, kill the

Re: Some ideas on Freenet architecture

2017-09-15 Thread Arne Babenhauserheide
Matthew John Toseland writes: > Specifically, the process for a scarce *insert* will be: > 1) Is the key popular?? We can tell this from how many peers are > subscribed to it in the ULPR table. If not, kill the request; we only > provide protection for popular

Re: Some ideas on Freenet architecture

2017-09-15 Thread Matthew John Toseland
On 14/09/17 22:18, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > Matthew John Toseland writes: >> On 14/09/17 17:33, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >>> I think the core problem is that I don’t quite understand what you’re >>> proposing. Bundles I understand, but I don’t understand how

Re: Some ideas on Freenet architecture

2017-09-14 Thread Arne Babenhauserheide
Matthew John Toseland writes: > On 14/09/17 17:33, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >> I think the core problem is that I don’t quite understand what you’re >> proposing. Bundles I understand, but I don’t understand how the scarce >> SSKs change routing. > > They don't.

Re: Some ideas on Freenet architecture

2017-09-14 Thread Matthew John Toseland
On 14/09/17 17:33, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > Matthew John Toseland writes: >> On 13/09/17 21:23, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >>> Matthew John Toseland writes: Proposal 0: Bundles --- >>> Do I understand it

Re: Some ideas on Freenet architecture

2017-09-14 Thread Arne Babenhauserheide
Matthew John Toseland writes: > On 13/09/17 21:23, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >> Matthew John Toseland writes: >>> Proposal 0: Bundles >>> --- >> Do I understand it correctly that this means that all inserts from a >> given

Re: Some ideas on Freenet architecture

2017-09-13 Thread Matthew John Toseland
On 13/09/17 21:23, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > Matthew John Toseland writes: > >> On 12/09/17 22:34, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >>> >>> Matthew John Toseland writes: But we need *something* in this approximate area. >>> >>> I

Re: Some ideas on Freenet architecture

2017-09-13 Thread Arne Babenhauserheide
Matthew John Toseland writes: > On 12/09/17 22:34, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >> >> Matthew John Toseland writes: >>> But we need *something* in this approximate area. >> >> I fully agree with that. I think however that we need to be

Re: Some ideas on Freenet architecture

2017-09-13 Thread Matthew John Toseland
On 13/09/17 19:56, Matthew John Toseland wrote: > > > On 13/09/17 19:51, Matthew John Toseland wrote: >> On 12/09/17 22:34, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >>> >>> Matthew John Toseland writes: But we need *something* in this approximate area. >>> >>> I fully agree

Re: Some ideas on Freenet architecture

2017-09-13 Thread Matthew John Toseland
On 13/09/17 19:51, Matthew John Toseland wrote: > On 12/09/17 22:34, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >> >> Matthew John Toseland writes: >>> But we need *something* in this approximate area. >> >> I fully agree with that. I think however that we need to be careful not >>

Re: Some ideas on Freenet architecture

2017-09-13 Thread Matthew John Toseland
On 12/09/17 22:34, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > Matthew John Toseland writes: >> But we need *something* in this approximate area. > > I fully agree with that. I think however that we need to be careful not > to require user interaction for that. Users already

Re: Some ideas on Freenet architecture

2017-09-12 Thread Arne Babenhauserheide
Matthew John Toseland writes: > But we need *something* in this approximate area. I fully agree with that. I think however that we need to be careful not to require user interaction for that. Users already added the friend, we can’t require more than maintaining the

Re: Some ideas on Freenet architecture

2017-09-12 Thread Matthew John Toseland
On 11/09/17 22:48, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > Matthew John Toseland 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 >>

Re: Some ideas on Freenet architecture

2017-09-11 Thread Arne Babenhauserheide
Matthew John Toseland 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

Re: Some ideas on Freenet architecture

2017-09-03 Thread Matthew John Toseland
On 03/09/17 21:01, Matthew John Toseland wrote: > On 03/09/17 20:53, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >> Hi toad, >> >> Matthew John Toseland writes: >>> Thoughts? I'm not a dev any more, but thinking about Bitcoin and other >>> stuff maybe there are some ways forward that

Re: Some ideas on Freenet architecture

2017-09-03 Thread Matthew John Toseland
On 03/09/17 20:53, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Hi toad, > > Matthew John Toseland writes: >> Thoughts? I'm not a dev any more, but thinking about Bitcoin and other >> stuff maybe there are some ways forward that we've missed... >> >> Dispute resolution, spam and

Re: Some ideas on Freenet architecture

2017-09-03 Thread Arne Babenhauserheide
Hi toad, Matthew John Toseland writes: > Thoughts? I'm not a dev any more, but thinking about Bitcoin and other > stuff maybe there are some ways forward that we've missed... > > Dispute resolution, spam and distributed data structures >

Re: Some ideas on Freenet architecture

2017-09-03 Thread Matthew John Toseland
On 03/09/17 18:31, Matthew John Toseland wrote: > Thoughts? I'm not a dev any more, but thinking about Bitcoin and other > stuff maybe there are some ways forward that we've missed... > > Dispute resolution, spam and distributed data structures >