You know, I do think that freenet is a good idea. And in fact, until freenet users will consume too much traffic, i'm not going to ban them. Because i don't want to. In fact, right now 100.0% of major traffic consumers are using *other* P2P networks. Mostly torrents, some use mule & DC, but they are much less pain - DC-like protocols never utilize 100% bandwidth due to long periods when noone is leeching from you. So the upload traffic is poorly utilized, and downloads are not so fast due to lack of seeders. So the major problem is torrent, which is extremely easy to detect and ban. And I like the idea. As of freenet, my interest is pure theory right now, since freenet users just don't bother be.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Artefact2 <artefa...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 04:57:15PM +0100, VolodyA! V Anarhist wrote: > > Evan Daniel wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 9:59 AM, VolodyA! V > > > Anarhist<volo...@whengendarmesleeps.org> wrote: > > >> Luke771 wrote: > > >>> Alex Pyattaev wrote: > > >>>> Ok people, I'll try to adopt my own freenode to track the users that > > >>>> try to connect to freenet. If I come up with solution, I'll indeed > > >>>> tell you. Hope I'll ban some nasty users before you make a patch, so > > >>>> that I can sleep well knowing that my bosses will never know about > the > > >>>> freenet users in the LAN=) > > >>>> > > >>> What you're doing here is catching Opennet users. Pure Darknet users > > >>> wont be that easy to catch. > > >> He has stated that the network does not allow "P2P applications" > running Freenet > > >> as pure darknet will technically be "F2F", now we can start arguing > whether F2F > > >> is a subset of P2P or a distinctly different thing. But if we accept > that F2F > > >> and P2P are different, then people who haven't enabled Opennet are > actually not > > >> violating that particular network's guidelines. > > > > > > Except that it's really, really obvious that friends are a subset of > > > peers. See definition of peers. In a computing context, peers is as > > > distinct from client/server etc. This is a silly argument, and any > > > sysadmin will (rightly) tell you you're an idiot if you try to make > > > it. > > > > > > Evan Daniel > > > > The issue with my university was that P2P applications do not let anybody > > control who connects to your computer. Each person has to be responsible > for the > > connections being made to the machine. Clearly F2F network is *not* a > subset of > > P2P under that light. So many users will (rightly) call you an idiot > (since we > > were not discussing peers and friends, but P2P and F2F). > > > > - Volodya > > I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you. You control who your node > connect with, but you *don't* control what goes through your node. > > You can control your friends, you cannot control friends of your > friends. > > So we might consider that, _in the case of Freenet_, F2F is P2P, it's > just extremely more difficult to censor. > > _______________________________________________ > 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:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe >
_______________________________________________ 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:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe