On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 10:55:12AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: > On 19 Sep 2005, at 16:54, Matthew Toseland wrote: > >It is IMHO strategically vital that we can test the network as a pure > >darknet. We will need an opennet as well, because we need to have > >something for people to download from freenetproject.org. > > I see no reason for there to be a separate opennet and darknet. We > have open nodes and dark nodes within a single network. > > Having two separate networks will simply confuse our userbase and > reduce the utility of the network for everyone.
Which reduces "globally scalable darknet" to "clusters of dark nodes hanging off the opennet". 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. > > Ian. -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20050920/bec9a387/attachment.pgp>
