On 20 Sep 2005, at 11:33, Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 11:12:40AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
On 20 Sep 2005, at 10:56, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Which reduces "globally scalable darknet" to "clusters of dark nodes
hanging off the opennet".
Well, if that would truly be the topology then the alternative is
"clusters of isolated dark nodes", which is worse?
There would be no real reason to grow the darknet, that's the
point. If
the only way to connect (easily) is by growing the darknet, it will
grow.
So you propose to force people to run darknet nodes even though they
might be quite satisfied to use the opennet? I don't believe in
forcing users to do things against their will.
The result of which is that it does not tell
us anything about the viability of the global darknet. And WHEN,
not if,
the opennet is compromized, there is no global darknet. Just a few
disconnected nodes.
If you truly believe that dark nodes would be in small isolated
pockets, then what makes you believe that a pure-darknet is viable at
all without open nodes to glue it together?
I don't believe people would make the effort to grow the darknet if
they
are connected by open nodes. And furthermore, if they are connected by
open nodes, it tells us nothing whatsoever about the viability of a
fully dark network.
People get a choice. If people chose to leave their nodes open, then
so be it. It isn't our place to force people to do one thing or the
other.
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
[email protected]
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
