[Ian] >>>>Well, if that would truly be the topology then the alternative is >>>>"clusters of isolated dark nodes", which is worse? >>>> >>> [Matthew] >>>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.
Or not. Maybe it will simply stagnate. The most probably scenery in my eyes is that people will want to join the darknet. To achieve this, they will connect to untrusted people. In practice, the darknet will be the opennet. There will be online repositories of "trusted" nodes to connect to. I see no easy way to find trusted links until the network is ubiquitous. And even then, how many trusted links are expected per node? In a critical environment, I would not have more than one or two people of my confidence. More probably there would be no one who couldn't turn a mole in harsh times. [Ian] >>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. Rightly so IMO, because they don't follow. [Matthew] > Eh? I don't understand. If they want to use the opennet, they can use > the opennet. Users want to access *all* the available content in the most safe manner. For some, it will be just through trusted neighbors. For others, it will be untrusted ones. [Matthew] >>>>>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. And at that point, forced by circumstances, people in the disconnected nodes will do the *real* effort to find trusted neighbors. [Ian] >>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. [Matthew] > In which case the whole experiment will have been totally pointless, and > there will be NOTHING to build on in the future, because we won't have > actually prototyped the globally scalable darknet. A legitimate concern. But. If there are two networks, except for those under critical risk to their lives, people will chose the easy one, the one where all other people (and content) is. In practice you will have a big opennet unsuitable for your test purposes and some small darknets, maybe unknown to you, and probably so small to be of no value to your intention of testing the global scalable darknet. Aren't WASTE networks already useful for these people? They don't scale but they serve for reduced groups with very specific interests. Maybe I've missed something in the discussion, so, will be there some forced incompatibility in the nodes to prevent adding trusted and untrusted links? The only outcome I can foresee is that one of the two networks will prevail. Why? Either because the darknet routing works and the opennet don't, either because it works in the opennet and all the content is there. Once that happens, the network will be no longer a pure darknet in any case. So, if I've understood you right (and please correct me if not), your main concern is to have a big darknet with the right topology. What do you think about this: use some sophisticated management of links. You have two categories: trusted and untrusted. You may transfer your links between these, and activate these independently. The network can get a quick start with people using untrusted links. When the network has a reasonable size, it may be easy for people to find trusted friends. At that point, you make their links trusted and deactivate the untrusted ones. Or you reduce the number of them until you need these no more. So the network will progressively mutate into darknet form. Feasible? _______________________________________________ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
