On 20 Sep 2005, at 10:56, Matthew Toseland wrote: > 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".
Well, if that would truly be the topology then the alternative is "clusters of isolated dark nodes", which is worse? > 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? Ian.
