On 20 Sep 2005, at 11:33, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 11:12:40AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: > >> On 20 Sep 2005, at 10:56, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> >>> >>> 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? >> > > 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.
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. >>> 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? > > I don't believe people would make the effort to grow the darknet if > they > are connected by open nodes. And furthermore, if they are connected by > open nodes, it tells us nothing whatsoever about the viability of a > fully dark network. 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. Ian.