Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
I got nothing. No 'icon', no tags to place an icon, nothing. On 8/27/06, Nicholas Sturm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I opened the message below all that displayed was an icon. When I attempted to save the icon all hell broke loose. My mail client was closed. After some attempts I was able to reboot and the spamblocker (earthlink) had examined the message and found nothing suspicious. However now I found that a message was displayed as shown below. A similar behavior with the message immediately preceding and with the same i icon. Anyone have some suggestions of what had happened or why the message behaved so peculiarly? Incidently the icon was utitled when I attempted to save it -- my common practice when a mail message appears to be peculiar. [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: support@freenetproject.org Date: 8/27/2006 12:19:54 AM Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7 I agree. I wouldn't want to be the only connection between 2 networks, or even one of a small few. I simply don't have the bandwidth. Maybe a T1 or T3 could handle it, but not what 90+% of the people using freenet would have to work with. As I follow these threads I begin to see a core group of people that are promoting 0.7 as the way to go. They have ideas about how it will work, but so far I haven't seen convincing evidence to show how it's going to actually do what they say. I understand 0.7 is in it's infancy, but it's really premature and living in an incubator. It's got a long way to go to be able to meet the level of use people are claiming it will have. I was running 0.7, I'm in the process of changing OS on the PC that was running it, but I did not like having to exchange information with someone on IRC. It's the first time I've ever had anything to do with IRC, and though some people are IRC advocates I've never been one. I didn't know the people I was connecting to at all, and the only reason it didn't bother me was because I was simply provide a computer and bandwidth. If I had an agenda, or a real reason to be using freenet, I would never have considered giving out information. I was about as anonymous as if I had posted my IP address on Google for everyone to view. It may be called darknet, but someone forgot to turn off the light. Yea, but you don't know all the nodes in the network, you just know the ones your connected to. So if one of those links between the networks goes down, half your downloads stall out and die. And wouldn't that put a pretty big strain on certain computers? I mean, if you get this global network of small networks...90% of the data you request will probably be on another 'network'. The number of connections between these networks is going to be a lot smaller than connections within the network. Therefore the computers that connect between them are gonna have a much greater strain on them than the ones that are only linked to one 'network'. And if these individual networks fully connect and integrate...you have an opennet. Except you have to physically get your node connections from someone else. So you have an opennet with much fewer connections, which doesn't seem like a good thing. On 8/26/06, Evan Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that happens to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no main network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently is setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to everyone else. That is not true. Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global network, not multiple independent networks consisting of small groups. Ian. Ian, How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group trades connection information with someone in another group? Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, another in Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 freenets. No one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, and they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to connect to because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to their freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global network? They won't. But your assumptions are off -- there's lots of good reasons to assume that once a small local network passes a handful of connected users it will gain a connection to a different network. And then you have a global network. This is what is meant when people say 0.7 is designed to form a global network -- there is no magic, except for the underlying properties of the social connections the network is built upon. Evan ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
On 8/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Through the opennet. Which won't exist for, like, a year. Hmmm. Except they won't be using the opennet at all if they're serious enough about keeping their net and themselves safe that they won't use IRC to find new connections. The end result of using opennet and getting refs through IRC is the same, except it's a little easier for both them and the possible attacker with opennet as it's completely automated. On 8/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that happens to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no main network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently is setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to everyone else. That is not true. Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global network, not multiple independent networks consisting of small groups. Ian. Ian, How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group trades connection information with someone in another group? Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, another in Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 freenets. No one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, and they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to connect to because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to their freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global network? _ Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.com/ ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- HTML a href=http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliatesamp;id=0amp;t=57;img border=0 alt=Get Firefox! title=Get Firefox! src=http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affiliates/Buttons/180x60/blank.gif//a ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] 0,5 or 0,7 should we move this discussion?
Hi, Great discussion I have a few questions too, but should we move it to another list? I feel bad about having started it here, Van ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
Please justify your assumptions. There is a lot of data on social networks that says that is not how they look. I see no reason to believe the social networks a freenet darknet would be built upon would be different. Evan On 8/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yea, but you don't know all the nodes in the network, you just know the ones your connected to. So if one of those links between the networks goes down, half your downloads stall out and die. And wouldn't that put a pretty big strain on certain computers? I mean, if you get this global network of small networks...90% of the data you request will probably be on another 'network'. The number of connections between these networks is going to be a lot smaller than connections within the network. Therefore the computers that connect between them are gonna have a much greater strain on them than the ones that are only linked to one 'network'. And if these individual networks fully connect and integrate...you have an opennet. Except you have to physically get your node connections from someone else. So you have an opennet with much fewer connections, which doesn't seem like a good thing. On 8/26/06, Evan Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that happens to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no main network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently is setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to everyone else. That is not true. Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global network, not multiple independent networks consisting of small groups. Ian. Ian, How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group trades connection information with someone in another group? Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, another in Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 freenets. No one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, and they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to connect to because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to their freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global network? They won't. But your assumptions are off -- there's lots of good reasons to assume that once a small local network passes a handful of connected users it will gain a connection to a different network. And then you have a global network. This is what is meant when people say 0.7 is designed to form a global network -- there is no magic, except for the underlying properties of the social connections the network is built upon. Evan ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- HTML a href=http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliatesamp;id=0amp;t=57;img border=0 alt=Get Firefox! title=Get Firefox! src=http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affiliates/Buttons/180x60/blank.gif//a ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] 0,5 or 0,7 should we move this discussion?
On 8/27/06, - [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Great discussion I have a few questions too, but should we move it to another list? I feel bad about having started it here, Van The chat mailinglist would be better. Thanks :) -- I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. - Voltaire ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
Evan, You are right - there is a lot of data to show that social networks do expand in the method being said here, but that data is based on known, non-anonymous social networks. In an anonymous network the rule of thumb is trust no one. If an openet is not the solution, neither is posting information with an embeded IP number the solution. I don't know how the openet is hackable, especially if node connections pr paths through nodes change randomly (TOR-like), but with a manually established network it only takes capturing 1 node and the entire freenet is at risk. I would be more inclined to exchange node information with someone if the information were encrypted - private/public key. In an anonymous social network I would be more inclined to expand that network to others because my node information is encrypted. From: Evan Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], support@freenetproject.org To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: support@freenetproject.org Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7 Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:06:37 -0400 Please justify your assumptions. There is a lot of data on social networks that says that is not how they look. I see no reason to believe the social networks a freenet darknet would be built upon would be different. Evan On 8/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yea, but you don't know all the nodes in the network, you just know the ones your connected to. So if one of those links between the networks goes down, half your downloads stall out and die. And wouldn't that put a pretty big strain on certain computers? I mean, if you get this global network of small networks...90% of the data you request will probably be on another 'network'. The number of connections between these networks is going to be a lot smaller than connections within the network. Therefore the computers that connect between them are gonna have a much greater strain on them than the ones that are only linked to one 'network'. And if these individual networks fully connect and integrate...you have an opennet. Except you have to physically get your node connections from someone else. So you have an opennet with much fewer connections, which doesn't seem like a good thing. On 8/26/06, Evan Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that happens to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no main network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently is setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to everyone else. That is not true. Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global network, not multiple independent networks consisting of small groups. Ian. Ian, How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group trades connection information with someone in another group? Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, another in Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 freenets. No one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, and they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to connect to because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to their freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global network? They won't. But your assumptions are off -- there's lots of good reasons to assume that once a small local network passes a handful of connected users it will gain a connection to a different network. And then you have a global network. This is what is meant when people say 0.7 is designed to form a global network -- there is no magic, except for the underlying properties of the social connections the network is built upon. Evan ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- HTML a href=http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliatesamp;id=0amp;t=57;img border=0 alt=Get Firefox! title=Get Firefox! src=http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affiliates/Buttons/180x60/blank.gif//a ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
Exactly. The theory of a darknet is you connect to people that you already know and trust. Now, there's a good chance of getting a worldwide-net because someone in group A may know and trust someone in group B, but chances are that not all of group A knows all of group B. For a real-world analogy...I don't have a problem hanging out with my girlfriend and her friends...she has no problem being with me and my friends...but my friends and her friends would never meet independently. Perhaps they would become friends with time...and perhaps people in group A of the darknet would get to know and trust people in group B of the darknetbut that would take time. I mean, I know that personally it's gonna take a few years of knowing someone before I would trust them well enough to talk about the kinda stuff some people do on freenet. I mean, yea, that time might be lowered by someone else you trust saying 'they're cool, don't worry about it'...but still, by the time you have a global network, freenet 1.0 is gonna be out. Plus it makes freenet a much better target for government agencies. Chances are the people you are connected directly to in freenet you know very well. Chances are the people you know very well live in the same country as you, if for no other reason than a shared language. So chances are, if they bust one freenet node, they can bust all connected nodes. And that actually made me think of one other thing. If you have a darknet in, say, Germany, they will most likely all speak German and upload German files. So how would they get joined to a darknet that mostly spoke English and uploads English files? Only people who speak both languages relatively well will bother to connect to both networks. But they have to not only speak both languages but also know and trust someone else who speaks the other language. Which seems to point back to smaller networks connected in few places. On 8/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Evan, You are right - there is a lot of data to show that social networks do expand in the method being said here, but that data is based on known, non-anonymous social networks. In an anonymous network the rule of thumb is trust no one. If an openet is not the solution, neither is posting information with an embeded IP number the solution. I don't know how the openet is hackable, especially if node connections pr paths through nodes change randomly (TOR-like), but with a manually established network it only takes capturing 1 node and the entire freenet is at risk. I would be more inclined to exchange node information with someone if the information were encrypted - private/public key. In an anonymous social network I would be more inclined to expand that network to others because my node information is encrypted. From: Evan Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], support@freenetproject.org To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: support@freenetproject.org Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7 Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:06:37 -0400 Please justify your assumptions. There is a lot of data on social networks that says that is not how they look. I see no reason to believe the social networks a freenet darknet would be built upon would be different. Evan On 8/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yea, but you don't know all the nodes in the network, you just know the ones your connected to. So if one of those links between the networks goes down, half your downloads stall out and die. And wouldn't that put a pretty big strain on certain computers? I mean, if you get this global network of small networks...90% of the data you request will probably be on another 'network'. The number of connections between these networks is going to be a lot smaller than connections within the network. Therefore the computers that connect between them are gonna have a much greater strain on them than the ones that are only linked to one 'network'. And if these individual networks fully connect and integrate...you have an opennet. Except you have to physically get your node connections from someone else. So you have an opennet with much fewer connections, which doesn't seem like a good thing. On 8/26/06, Evan Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/26/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that happens to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no main network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently is setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to everyone else. That is not true. Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global network, not multiple independent networks consisting of small groups. Ian. Ian, How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group trades connection information with someone in another group? Hypothetical - A group of people in
[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 vs 0,7 moving discussion
Hi, I'm attempting to move this discussion the the chat list as requested, I've posted there and looking forward to your replies! If you're not subscribed you can look at it here: http://archives.freenetproject.org/list/chat.en.html ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [freenet-support] 0,5 or 0,7 should we move this discussion?
I guess you could move it to a place where many of us don't know how to get too. So much has changed from the early freenet that I have found very little of what I once knew about. - Original Message - From: - To: support@freenetproject.org Sent: 8/27/2006 12:15:36 PM Subject: [freenet-support] 0,5 or 0,7 should we move this discussion? Hi, Great discussion I have a few questions too, but should we move it to another list? I feel bad about having started it here, Van ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] 0,5 or 0,7 should we move this discussion?
Even freenet has a habit of talking about places without providing a pointer. Is that a built-in property of most freetnet folks. I.e., if I know what I'm talking about then everyone knows about it? [Original Message] From: Juiceman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: support@freenetproject.org Date: 8/27/2006 12:22:42 PM Subject: Re: [freenet-support] 0,5 or 0,7 should we move this discussion? On 8/27/06, - [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Great discussion I have a few questions too, but should we move it to another list? I feel bad about having started it here, Van The chat mailinglist would be better. Thanks :) -- I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. - Voltaire ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
Really, if you don't trust anyone, you shouldn't be using the internet, and you probably should reconsider whether life is worth living. :) I trust a lot of people a little bit. I don't trust many people a lot. And I've never really become acquainted philosophically with anyone on freenet. Apart from band width perhaps that's why I read the lists, but no longer run a node. ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-support] 0,5 or 0,7 should we move this discussion?
On 8/27/06, Nicholas Sturm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even freenet has a habit of talking about places without providing a pointer. Is that a built-in property of most freetnet folks. I.e., if I know what I'm talking about then everyone knows about it? http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo (Which I found by following the link at the bottom of every message in this mailinglist.) ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. - Voltaire ___ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
>>Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that happens >>to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no main >>network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently is >>setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to >>everyone else. > >That is not true. Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global network, not >multiple independent networks consisting of small groups. > >Ian. Ian, How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group trades connection information with someone in another group? Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, another in Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 freenets. No one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, and they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to connect to because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to their freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global network? _ Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.com/
[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
Yea, but you don't know all the nodes in the network, you just know the ones your connected to. So if one of those links between the networks goes down, half your downloads stall out and die. And wouldn't that put a pretty big strain on certain computers? I mean, if you get this global network of small networks...90% of the data you request will probably be on another 'network'. The number of connections between these networks is going to be a lot smaller than connections within the network. Therefore the computers that connect between them are gonna have a much greater strain on them than the ones that are only linked to one 'network'. And if these individual networks fully connect and integrate...you have an opennet. Except you have to physically get your node connections from someone else. So you have an opennet with much fewer connections, which doesn't seem like a good thing. On 8/26/06, Evan Daniel wrote: > On 8/26/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote: > > >>Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that happens > > >>to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no main > > >>network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently is > > >>setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to > > >>everyone else. > > > > > >That is not true. Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global network, not > > >multiple independent networks consisting of small groups. > > > > > >Ian. > > > > Ian, > > > > How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group > > trades connection information with someone in another group? > > > > Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, another in > > Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 freenets. No > > one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, and > > they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to connect to > > because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to their > > freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global network? > > They won't. But your assumptions are off -- there's lots of good > reasons to assume that once a small local network passes a handful of > connected users it will gain a connection to a different network. And > then you have a global network. This is what is meant when people say > 0.7 is designed to form a global network -- there is no magic, except > for the underlying properties of the social connections the network is > built upon. > > Evan > ___ > Support mailing list > Support at freenetproject.org > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > -- http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliatesid=0t=57;>http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affiliates/Buttons/180x60/blank.gif"/>
[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
I agree. I wouldn't want to be the only connection between 2 networks, or even one of a small few. I simply don't have the bandwidth. Maybe a T1 or T3 could handle it, but not what 90+% of the people using freenet would have to work with. As I follow these threads I begin to see a core group of people that are promoting 0.7 as the way to go. They have ideas about how it will work, but so far I haven't seen convincing evidence to show how it's going to actually do what they say. I understand 0.7 is in it's infancy, but it's really premature and living in an incubator. It's got a long way to go to be able to meet the level of use people are claiming it will have. I was running 0.7, I'm in the process of changing OS on the PC that was running it, but I did not like having to exchange information with someone on IRC. It's the first time I've ever had anything to do with IRC, and though some people are IRC advocates I've never been one. I didn't know the people I was connecting to at all, and the only reason it didn't bother me was because I was simply provide a computer and bandwidth. If I had an agenda, or a real reason to be using freenet, I would never have considered giving out information. I was about as anonymous as if I had posted my IP address on Google for everyone to view. It may be called darknet, but someone forgot to turn off the light. >Yea, but you don't know all the nodes in the network, you just know >the ones your connected to. So if one of those links between the >networks goes down, half your downloads stall out and die. And >wouldn't that put a pretty big strain on certain computers? I mean, if >you get this global network of small networks...90% of the data you >request will probably be on another 'network'. The number of >connections between these networks is going to be a lot smaller than >connections within the network. Therefore the computers that connect >between them are gonna have a much greater strain on them than the >ones that are only linked to one 'network'. And if these individual >networks fully connect and integrate...you have an opennet. Except you >have to physically get your node connections from someone else. So you >have an opennet with much fewer connections, which doesn't seem like a >good thing. > > >On 8/26/06, Evan Daniel wrote: >>On 8/26/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote: >> > >>Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that >>happens >> > >>to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no main >> > >>network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently is >> > >>setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to >> > >>everyone else. >> > > >> > >That is not true. Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global >>network, not >> > >multiple independent networks consisting of small groups. >> > > >> > >Ian. >> > >> > Ian, >> > >> > How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group >> > trades connection information with someone in another group? >> > >> > Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, another >>in >> > Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 >>freenets. No >> > one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, >>and >> > they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to >>connect to >> > because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to their >> > freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global >>network? >> >>They won't. But your assumptions are off -- there's lots of good >>reasons to assume that once a small local network passes a handful of >>connected users it will gain a connection to a different network. And >>then you have a global network. This is what is meant when people say >>0.7 is designed to form a global network -- there is no magic, except >>for the underlying properties of the social connections the network is >>built upon. >> >>Evan >>___ >>Support mailing list >>Support at freenetproject.org >>http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support >>Unsubscribe at >>http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support >>Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe >> > > >-- > >http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliatesid=0t=57;>border="0" alt="Get Firefox!" title="Get Firefox!" >src="http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affiliates/Buttons/180x60/blank.gif"/> >___ >Support mailing list >Support at freenetproject.org >http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support >Unsubscribe at >http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support >Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
When I opened the message below all that displayed was an icon. When I attempted to save the icon all hell broke loose. My mail client was closed. After some attempts I was able to reboot and the spamblocker (earthlink) had examined the message and found nothing suspicious. However now I found that a message was displayed as shown below. A similar behavior with the message immediately preceding and with the same "i" icon. Anyone have some suggestions of what had happened or why the message behaved so peculiarly? Incidently the icon was "utitled" when I attempted to save it -- my common practice when a mail message appears to be peculiar. > [Original Message] > From: > To: > Date: 8/27/2006 12:19:54 AM > Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7 > > I agree. I wouldn't want to be the only connection between 2 networks, or > even one of a small few. I simply don't have the bandwidth. Maybe a T1 or T3 > could handle it, but not what 90+% of the people using freenet would have to > work with. > > As I follow these threads I begin to see a core group of people that are > promoting 0.7 as the way to go. They have ideas about how it will work, but > so far I haven't seen convincing evidence to show how it's going to actually > do what they say. I understand 0.7 is in it's infancy, but it's really > premature and living in an incubator. It's got a long way to go to be able > to meet the level of use people are claiming it will have. > > I was running 0.7, I'm in the process of changing OS on the PC that was > running it, but I did not like having to exchange information with someone > on IRC. It's the first time I've ever had anything to do with IRC, and > though some people are IRC advocates I've never been one. I didn't know the > people I was connecting to at all, and the only reason it didn't bother me > was because I was simply provide a computer and bandwidth. If I had an > agenda, or a real reason to be using freenet, I would never have considered > giving out information. I was about as anonymous as if I had posted my IP > address on Google for everyone to view. > > It may be called darknet, but someone forgot to turn off the light. > > > >Yea, but you don't know all the nodes in the network, you just know > >the ones your connected to. So if one of those links between the > >networks goes down, half your downloads stall out and die. And > >wouldn't that put a pretty big strain on certain computers? I mean, if > >you get this global network of small networks...90% of the data you > >request will probably be on another 'network'. The number of > >connections between these networks is going to be a lot smaller than > >connections within the network. Therefore the computers that connect > >between them are gonna have a much greater strain on them than the > >ones that are only linked to one 'network'. And if these individual > >networks fully connect and integrate...you have an opennet. Except you > >have to physically get your node connections from someone else. So you > >have an opennet with much fewer connections, which doesn't seem like a > >good thing. > > > > > >On 8/26/06, Evan Daniel wrote: > >>On 8/26/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote: > >> > >>Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that > >>happens > >> > >>to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no main > >> > >>network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently is > >> > >>setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to > >> > >>everyone else. > >> > > > >> > >That is not true. Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global > >>network, not > >> > >multiple independent networks consisting of small groups. > >> > > > >> > >Ian. > >> > > >> > Ian, > >> > > >> > How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group > >> > trades connection information with someone in another group? > >> > > >> > Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, another > >>in > >> > Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 > >>freenets. No > >> > one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, > >>and > >> > they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to > >>connect to > >> > because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to their > >> > freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global > >>network? > >> > >>They won't. But your assumptions are off -- there's lots of good > >>reasons to assume that once a small local network passes a handful of > >>connected users it will gain a connection to a different network. And > >>then you have a global network. This is what is meant when people say > >>0.7 is designed to form a global network -- there is no magic, except > >>for the underlying properties of the social connections the network is > >>built upon. > >> > >>Evan > >>___ > >>Support
[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
I got nothing. No 'icon', no tags to place an icon, nothing. On 8/27/06, Nicholas Sturm wrote: > When I opened the message below all that displayed was an icon. When I > attempted to save the icon all hell broke loose. My mail client was > closed. After some attempts I was able to reboot and the spamblocker > (earthlink) had examined the message and found nothing suspicious. However > now I found that a message was displayed as shown below. A similar > behavior with the message immediately preceding and with the same "i" icon. > Anyone have some suggestions of what had happened or why the message > behaved so peculiarly? Incidently the icon was "utitled" when I attempted > to save it -- my common practice when a mail message appears to be peculiar. > > > > [Original Message] > > From: > > To: > > Date: 8/27/2006 12:19:54 AM > > Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7 > > > > I agree. I wouldn't want to be the only connection between 2 networks, or > > even one of a small few. I simply don't have the bandwidth. Maybe a T1 or > T3 > > could handle it, but not what 90+% of the people using freenet would have > to > > work with. > > > > As I follow these threads I begin to see a core group of people that are > > promoting 0.7 as the way to go. They have ideas about how it will work, > but > > so far I haven't seen convincing evidence to show how it's going to > actually > > do what they say. I understand 0.7 is in it's infancy, but it's really > > premature and living in an incubator. It's got a long way to go to be > able > > to meet the level of use people are claiming it will have. > > > > I was running 0.7, I'm in the process of changing OS on the PC that was > > running it, but I did not like having to exchange information with > someone > > on IRC. It's the first time I've ever had anything to do with IRC, and > > though some people are IRC advocates I've never been one. I didn't know > the > > people I was connecting to at all, and the only reason it didn't bother > me > > was because I was simply provide a computer and bandwidth. If I had an > > agenda, or a real reason to be using freenet, I would never have > considered > > giving out information. I was about as anonymous as if I had posted my IP > > address on Google for everyone to view. > > > > It may be called darknet, but someone forgot to turn off the light. > > > > > > >Yea, but you don't know all the nodes in the network, you just know > > >the ones your connected to. So if one of those links between the > > >networks goes down, half your downloads stall out and die. And > > >wouldn't that put a pretty big strain on certain computers? I mean, if > > >you get this global network of small networks...90% of the data you > > >request will probably be on another 'network'. The number of > > >connections between these networks is going to be a lot smaller than > > >connections within the network. Therefore the computers that connect > > >between them are gonna have a much greater strain on them than the > > >ones that are only linked to one 'network'. And if these individual > > >networks fully connect and integrate...you have an opennet. Except you > > >have to physically get your node connections from someone else. So you > > >have an opennet with much fewer connections, which doesn't seem like a > > >good thing. > > > > > > > > >On 8/26/06, Evan Daniel wrote: > > >>On 8/26/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote: > > >> > >>Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that > > >>happens > > >> > >>to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no > main > > >> > >>network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently > is > > >> > >>setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to > > >> > >>everyone else. > > >> > > > > >> > >That is not true. Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global > > >>network, not > > >> > >multiple independent networks consisting of small groups. > > >> > > > > >> > >Ian. > > >> > > > >> > Ian, > > >> > > > >> > How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one > group > > >> > trades connection information with someone in another group? > > >> > > > >> > Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, > another > > >>in > > >> > Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 > > >>freenets. No > > >> > one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, > > >>and > > >> > they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to > > >>connect to > > >> > because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to > their > > >> > freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global > > >>network? > > >> > > >>They won't. But your assumptions are off -- there's lots of good > > >>reasons to assume that once a small local network passes a handful of > > >>connected users it will gain a connection to a different network. And > > >>then you have a global
[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
On 8/27/06, urza9814 at gmail.com wrote: > Through the opennet. Which won't exist for, like, a year. > Hmmm. Except they won't be using the opennet at all if they're serious enough about keeping their net and themselves safe that they won't use IRC to find new connections. The end result of using opennet and getting refs through IRC is the same, except it's a little easier for both them and the possible attacker with opennet as it's completely automated. > > On 8/26/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote: > > >>Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that happens > > >>to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no main > > >>network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently is > > >>setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to > > >>everyone else. > > > > > >That is not true. Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global network, not > > >multiple independent networks consisting of small groups. > > > > > >Ian. > > > > Ian, > > > > How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group > > trades connection information with someone in another group? > > > > Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, another in > > Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 freenets. No > > one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, and > > they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to connect to > > because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to their > > freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global network? > > > > _ > > Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! > > http://search.msn.com/ > > > > ___ > > Support mailing list > > Support at freenetproject.org > > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > > Unsubscribe at > > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > > Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > > > > > -- > > http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliatesid=0t=57;> border="0" alt="Get Firefox!" title="Get Firefox!" > src="http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affiliates/Buttons/180x60/blank.gif"/> > ___ > Support mailing list > Support at freenetproject.org > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe >
[freenet-support] 0,5 or 0,7 should we move this discussion?
Hi, Great discussion I have a few questions too, but should we move it to another list? I feel bad about having started it here, Van -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20060827/9fa49ea4/attachment.html> -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: BackGrnd.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1431 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20060827/9fa49ea4/attachment.jpg>
[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
Please justify your assumptions. There is a lot of data on social networks that says that is not how they look. I see no reason to believe the social networks a freenet darknet would be built upon would be different. Evan On 8/26/06, urza9814 at gmail.com wrote: > Yea, but you don't know all the nodes in the network, you just know > the ones your connected to. So if one of those links between the > networks goes down, half your downloads stall out and die. And > wouldn't that put a pretty big strain on certain computers? I mean, if > you get this global network of small networks...90% of the data you > request will probably be on another 'network'. The number of > connections between these networks is going to be a lot smaller than > connections within the network. Therefore the computers that connect > between them are gonna have a much greater strain on them than the > ones that are only linked to one 'network'. And if these individual > networks fully connect and integrate...you have an opennet. Except you > have to physically get your node connections from someone else. So you > have an opennet with much fewer connections, which doesn't seem like a > good thing. > > > On 8/26/06, Evan Daniel wrote: > > On 8/26/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote: > > > >>Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that happens > > > >>to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no main > > > >>network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently is > > > >>setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to > > > >>everyone else. > > > > > > > >That is not true. Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global network, > > > >not > > > >multiple independent networks consisting of small groups. > > > > > > > >Ian. > > > > > > Ian, > > > > > > How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group > > > trades connection information with someone in another group? > > > > > > Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, another in > > > Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 freenets. > > > No > > > one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, and > > > they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to connect > > > to > > > because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to their > > > freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global network? > > > > They won't. But your assumptions are off -- there's lots of good > > reasons to assume that once a small local network passes a handful of > > connected users it will gain a connection to a different network. And > > then you have a global network. This is what is meant when people say > > 0.7 is designed to form a global network -- there is no magic, except > > for the underlying properties of the social connections the network is > > built upon. > > > > Evan > > ___ > > Support mailing list > > Support at freenetproject.org > > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > > Unsubscribe at > > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > > Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > > > > > -- > > http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliatesid=0t=57;> border="0" alt="Get Firefox!" title="Get Firefox!" > src="http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affiliates/Buttons/180x60/blank.gif"/> > >
[freenet-support] 0,5 or 0,7 should we move this discussion?
On 8/27/06, - wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > Great discussion I have a few questions too, but should we move it to another > list? > I feel bad about having started it here, > > Van > The chat mailinglist would be better. Thanks :) -- I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. - Voltaire
[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
Evan, You are right - there is a lot of data to show that social networks do expand in the method being said here, but that data is based on known, non-anonymous social networks. In an anonymous network the rule of thumb is trust no one. If an openet is not the solution, neither is posting information with an embeded IP number the solution. I don't know how the openet is hackable, especially if node connections pr paths through nodes change randomly (TOR-like), but with a manually established network it only takes capturing 1 node and the entire freenet is at risk. I would be more inclined to exchange node information with someone if the information were encrypted - private/public key. In an anonymous social network I would be more inclined to expand that network to others because my node information is encrypted. >From: "Evan Daniel" >Reply-To: evand at pobox.com, support at freenetproject.org >To: "urza9814 at gmail.com" >CC: support at freenetproject.org >Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7 >Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:06:37 -0400 > >Please justify your assumptions. > >There is a lot of data on social networks that says that is not how >they look. I see no reason to believe the social networks a freenet >darknet would be built upon would be different. > >Evan > >On 8/26/06, urza9814 at gmail.com wrote: >>Yea, but you don't know all the nodes in the network, you just know >>the ones your connected to. So if one of those links between the >>networks goes down, half your downloads stall out and die. And >>wouldn't that put a pretty big strain on certain computers? I mean, if >>you get this global network of small networks...90% of the data you >>request will probably be on another 'network'. The number of >>connections between these networks is going to be a lot smaller than >>connections within the network. Therefore the computers that connect >>between them are gonna have a much greater strain on them than the >>ones that are only linked to one 'network'. And if these individual >>networks fully connect and integrate...you have an opennet. Except you >>have to physically get your node connections from someone else. So you >>have an opennet with much fewer connections, which doesn't seem like a >>good thing. >> >> >>On 8/26/06, Evan Daniel wrote: >> > On 8/26/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote: >> > > >>Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that >>happens >> > > >>to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no >>main >> > > >>network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently >>is >> > > >>setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to >> > > >>everyone else. >> > > > >> > > >That is not true. Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global >>network, not >> > > >multiple independent networks consisting of small groups. >> > > > >> > > >Ian. >> > > >> > > Ian, >> > > >> > > How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one >>group >> > > trades connection information with someone in another group? >> > > >> > > Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, >>another in >> > > Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 >>freenets. No >> > > one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, >>and >> > > they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to >>connect to >> > > because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to >>their >> > > freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global >>network? >> > >> > They won't. But your assumptions are off -- there's lots of good >> > reasons to assume that once a small local network passes a handful of >> > connected users it will gain a connection to a different network. And >> > then you have a global network. This is what is meant when people say >> > 0.7 is designed to form a global network -- there is no magic, except >> > for the underlying properties of the social connections the network is >> > built upon. >> > >> > Evan >> > ___ >> > Support mailing list >> > Support at freenetproject.org >> > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support >> > Unsubscribe at >>http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support >> > Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe >> > >> >> >>-- >> >>>href="http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=affiliatesid=0t=57;>>border="0" alt="Get Firefox!" title="Get Firefox!" >>src="http://sfx-images.mozilla.org/affiliates/Buttons/180x60/blank.gif"/> >> >> >___ >Support mailing list >Support at freenetproject.org >http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support >Unsubscribe at >http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support >Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe _ Express
[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
Exactly. The theory of a darknet is you connect to people that you already know and trust. Now, there's a good chance of getting a worldwide-net because someone in group A may know and trust someone in group B, but chances are that not all of group A knows all of group B. For a real-world analogy...I don't have a problem hanging out with my girlfriend and her friends...she has no problem being with me and my friends...but my friends and her friends would never meet independently. Perhaps they would become friends with time...and perhaps people in group A of the darknet would get to know and trust people in group B of the darknetbut that would take time. I mean, I know that personally it's gonna take a few years of knowing someone before I would trust them well enough to talk about the kinda stuff some people do on freenet. I mean, yea, that time might be lowered by someone else you trust saying 'they're cool, don't worry about it'...but still, by the time you have a global network, freenet 1.0 is gonna be out. Plus it makes freenet a much better target for government agencies. Chances are the people you are connected directly to in freenet you know very well. Chances are the people you know very well live in the same country as you, if for no other reason than a shared language. So chances are, if they bust one freenet node, they can bust all connected nodes. And that actually made me think of one other thing. If you have a darknet in, say, Germany, they will most likely all speak German and upload German files. So how would they get joined to a darknet that mostly spoke English and uploads English files? Only people who speak both languages relatively well will bother to connect to both networks. But they have to not only speak both languages but also know and trust someone else who speaks the other language. Which seems to point back to smaller networks connected in few places. On 8/27/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote: > Evan, > > You are right - there is a lot of data to show that social networks do > expand in the method being said here, but that data is based on known, > non-anonymous social networks. In an anonymous network the rule of thumb is > trust no one. > > If an openet is not the solution, neither is posting information with an > embeded IP number the solution. I don't know how the openet is hackable, > especially if node connections pr paths through nodes change randomly > (TOR-like), but with a manually established network it only takes capturing > 1 node and the entire freenet is at risk. I would be more inclined to > exchange node information with someone if the information were encrypted - > private/public key. In an anonymous social network I would be more inclined > to expand that network to others because my node information is encrypted. > > > > >From: "Evan Daniel" > >Reply-To: evand at pobox.com, support at freenetproject.org > >To: "urza9814 at gmail.com" > >CC: support at freenetproject.org > >Subject: Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7 > >Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:06:37 -0400 > > > >Please justify your assumptions. > > > >There is a lot of data on social networks that says that is not how > >they look. I see no reason to believe the social networks a freenet > >darknet would be built upon would be different. > > > >Evan > > > >On 8/26/06, urza9814 at gmail.com wrote: > >>Yea, but you don't know all the nodes in the network, you just know > >>the ones your connected to. So if one of those links between the > >>networks goes down, half your downloads stall out and die. And > >>wouldn't that put a pretty big strain on certain computers? I mean, if > >>you get this global network of small networks...90% of the data you > >>request will probably be on another 'network'. The number of > >>connections between these networks is going to be a lot smaller than > >>connections within the network. Therefore the computers that connect > >>between them are gonna have a much greater strain on them than the > >>ones that are only linked to one 'network'. And if these individual > >>networks fully connect and integrate...you have an opennet. Except you > >>have to physically get your node connections from someone else. So you > >>have an opennet with much fewer connections, which doesn't seem like a > >>good thing. > >> > >> > >>On 8/26/06, Evan Daniel wrote: > >> > On 8/26/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote: > >> > > >>Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that > >>happens > >> > > >>to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no > >>main > >> > > >>network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently > >>is > >> > > >>setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to > >> > > >>everyone else. > >> > > > > >> > > >That is not true. Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global > >>network, not > >> > > >multiple independent networks consisting of small groups. > >> > > > > >> > > >Ian. > >> > > > >> > > Ian,
[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 vs 0,7 moving discussion
Hi, I'm attempting to move this discussion the the chat list as requested, I've posted there and looking forward to your replies! If you're not subscribed you can look at it here: http://archives.freenetproject.org/list/chat.en.html -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20060827/ed094dca/attachment.html> -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: BackGrnd.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1431 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20060827/ed094dca/attachment.jpg>
[freenet-support] 0,5 or 0,7 should we move this discussion?
I guess you could move it to a place where many of us don't know how to get too. So much has changed from the early freenet that I have found very little of what I once knew about. - Original Message - From: - To: support at freenetproject.org Sent: 8/27/2006 12:15:36 PM Subject: [freenet-support] 0,5 or 0,7 should we move this discussion? Hi, Great discussion I have a few questions too, but should we move it to another list? I feel bad about having started it here, Van -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20060827/d5862a3a/attachment.html> -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: BackGrnd.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1431 bytes Desc: BackGrnd.jpg URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20060827/d5862a3a/attachment.jpg>
[freenet-support] 0,5 or 0,7 should we move this discussion?
Even freenet has a habit of talking about places without providing a pointer. Is that a built-in property of most freetnet folks. I.e., if I know what I'm talking about then everyone knows about it? > [Original Message] > From: Juiceman > To: > Date: 8/27/2006 12:22:42 PM > Subject: Re: [freenet-support] 0,5 or 0,7 should we move this discussion? > > On 8/27/06, - wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Great discussion I have a few questions too, but should we move it to another list? > > I feel bad about having started it here, > > > > Van > > > > The chat mailinglist would be better. Thanks :) > > > > -- > I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the > death, your right to say it. - Voltaire > ___ > Support mailing list > Support at freenetproject.org > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
> > Really, if you don't trust anyone, you shouldn't be using the internet, > and you probably should reconsider whether life is worth living. :) > I trust a lot of people a little bit. I don't trust many people a lot. And I've never really become acquainted philosophically with anyone on freenet. Apart from band width perhaps that's why I read the lists, but no longer run a node.
[freenet-support] 0,5 or 0,7 should we move this discussion?
On 8/27/06, Nicholas Sturm wrote: > Even freenet has a habit of talking about places without providing a > pointer. Is that a built-in property of most freetnet folks. I.e., if I > know what I'm talking about then everyone knows about it? > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo (Which I found by following the link at the bottom of every message in this mailinglist.) > > ___ > Support mailing list > Support at freenetproject.org > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe > -- I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. - Voltaire
Campaigning for Open-Net [WAS Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 and 0, 7]
-BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE- Message-type: plaintext In <35af28770608261648v10edeb06mee2478eebf1be3b0 at mail.gmail.com> urza9814 at gmail.com wrote: >Through the opennet. Which won't exist for, like, a year. >Hmmm. > >On 8/26/06, diddler4u at hotmail.com wrote: >> >>Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that happens >> >>to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no main >> >>network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently is >> >>setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to >> >>everyone else. >> > >> >That is not true. Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global network, not >> >multiple independent networks consisting of small groups. >> > >> >Ian. >> >> Ian, >> >> How can freenet grow to be a global network unless someone in one group >> trades connection information with someone in another group? >> >> Hypothetical - A group of people in England, another in France, another in >> Russia, and another in China have grown individual trusted 0.7 freenets. No >> one in any of these groups knows someone in the other freenet group, and >> they don't want to just advertise in IRC chat to find someone to connect to >> because they don't know and trust this as a way to add people to their >> freenet. How will these freenet groups become a part of a global network? The answer is simple. Without open-net and at least some reasonable percentage of nodes operating as part of both open and dark nets, 0.7 will NEVER become part of any global network. It will instead be limited, broken into hundreds or thousands of little 'island netowrks' Open-net is required to tie these islands into a global network. I will repeat something I read on frost recently, "We should all start pestering the hell outta both Ian and Toad to get open-net deployed." -END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
[freenet-support] Freenet 0,5 and 0,7
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Ian Clarke wrote: >On 24 Aug 2006, at 12:01, urza9814 at gmail.com wrote: >> Freenet 0.5 is an opennet. You connect to any random node that happens >> to be on. Freenet 0.7 doesn't have this yet. In 0.7, there is no main >> network. There might be now, but the idea of the way it currently is >> setup is to allow small groups to connect without connecting to >> everyone else. > >That is not true. Freenet 0.7 is designed to form one global >network, not multiple independent networks consisting of small groups. > >Ian. > >Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc. >phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog Ian; 0.7 is going to stall and sputter untill open net is deployed. Please urge Toad to deploy open net now thanks
