-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> talking about the datastore, if Freenet hasn't modified its behaviour
> lately I recall the every stored key is bound to disappear sooner or
> later from all the datastores.
>
> This is good when seen a wise usage of available space, and this is
> similar to the way bittorrent works (unpopulated torrents eventually
> are bound to disappear).
>
> However this is an undesirable behaviour to those looking for rare stuff.
>
> The reason for these ramblings is as follows. In a single week two of
> my older HDs have started showing signs of death. This is bad. I had
> to buy bigger a fat new HD to backup the data.
> Imagine what would happen if a big HD suddenly fails?
>
> Personally I don't have the money to buy a tape streamer or to
> completely mirror my data. Burning DVDs is not a viable option: DVD
> are prone to fast deterioration as time passes, plus they are
> remarkably small, compared to a modern Hard Disk.
>
> Now, what would happen if key are never bound to expire in a freenet
> datastore?
> Then you would have a permanent remote backup of your precious data.
> A darknet could be made to work as a remarkable distributed and (not
> so strongly) encrypted multiuser network backup system.
> If I recall correctly, the datastore size determines when a key is
> about to expire. Given that I'm willing to dedicate a full encrypted
> HD as a datastore, I'd like to suggest the possibility of a Freenet
> branch with the option to disable key expiration and to stop storing
> keys when the datastore is full.
>
> sorry for the dumb request..
>
> bye
> Inverse
I don't think that anything is dumb in what you've written, but i don't think
that
Freenet's goal is to archive the content. The ultimate goal is to allow for
communication
and publication from the regimes where Free Speech doesn't protect the
particular idea or
data you are trying to communicate or publish. It is not to say that this
content must
stay available forever.
In fact one of the reasons why i tell people that freenet is great is because
of the
karmikal balance on it. On the normal internet the more popular content dies
faster
(server has to pay more for the distribution) while on Freenet the more popular
content
will be last to go (it gets spread); that is just like in Bittorrent. However,
unlike in
Bittorrent, the act of downloading content actually spreads it, even if you go
offline
immediately after getting it.
While what you propose would help to keep unpopular content online, it would
break this
sort of structure, and popular but new content would find it harder to compete
with the
old. I am not making judgement here as to what content is actually important,
but i think
that what you describe is perhaps very close to Frost's insert on demand. Which
at a very
low cost can keep content available.
- Volodya
- --
http://freedom.libsyn.com/ Voice of Freedom, Radical Podcast
http://freeselfdefence.info/ Self-defence wiki
http://www.kingstonstudents.org/ Kingston University students' forum
"None of us are free until all of us are free." ~ Mihail Bakunin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFF+x0SuWy2EFICg+0RAvjqAKCj1wgpej79PjmVhG+rcbqBTb6LWACgpa9E
mkUA0umAlbYllD0nh2bFjkM=
=U278
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
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]
