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.


Reply via email to