Right now someone could easly make a freenet node app that screws with the
node operation.
Cancerous nodes I believe. The protocol is when detected, that the
cancerous nodes are to be ignored.
No messages, no processing.
Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: "JF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: [freenet-tech] Off-Topic: Ideas for a FreeNet Process
> ok 'm not proposing to scan he code.
> simple protocol etique will suffice
> Jay
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Guy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 6:44 PM
> Subject: RE: [freenet-tech] Off-Topic: Ideas for a FreeNet Process
>
>
> > Please don't be offended by this, but you're being myopic. The example
I
> > gave with bounded for loops was off the top of my head, and was simply
to
> > illustrate a SINGLE CLASS of software that can be solved. There are all
> > sorts of other categories that can be solved; the fact that I did not
> > enumerate them does not mean they do not exist. So don't cite that one
> > example as being the sum total of all possible software that can be
> proven.
> > All it means is that I haven't spent enough time on the subject to list
> > other possibilities; but this thread is only two hours old, so what do
you
> > want? I'll invent the entire field of mathematics in my next post.
> >
> > Here's a question: you're handed a function along with a proof that the
> > upper bound on the running time is n^2 and the average running time is n
> log
> > n. Has the halting problem been solved for this function? YES! And
> here's
> > the shocker: that proof (for Quicksort) can be verified by a machine!
Are
> > you going to claim that Quicksort is not a useful function?
> >
> > Another question: have you EVER written a program for which you did not
> know
> > the running time? Because any person who tries to ship a program (and
> we're
> > assuming here that the software WILL be shipped to a great many users)
> > without knowing if there are (undesired) infinite loops in the code is
> > simply irresponsible. The point being that programmers are solving the
> > halting problem for their algorithms ALL THE TIME. That's why we care
so
> > much about big-oh -- it not only tells us what the answer to the halting
> > problem is, but it also tells us how long we can expect to wait!
> >
> > If we want to be really strict, we should simply require that for every
> > program written, the programmer should also write a proof describing the
> > running time of the code, memory utilization, etc. Which programmers
> should
> > do anyway, so this would just enforce good practice. But that's
probably
> > asking too much. After all, I shouldn't talk; I don't write proofs for
my
> > code. At least, not *rigorous* proofs. But I CAN give you upper
bounds,
> > which is all I need to be able to say that I've solved the halting
> problem.
> >
> > Undecidablity proofs are interesting in that they tell us the LIMITS of
> what
> > can be done. They don't tell us about what NORMALLY can be done.
> >
> > As for the automatic downloading of software; god help us when our
> computers
> > start downloading code without our permission. But if we want them to
do
> > that, then we sure better put restrictions on what can run; and I, for
> one,
> > would be very happy to ban web servers and other infinite loops from my
> > machine, even if it means that I lose out on the occasional "useful"
> > program.
> >
> > --Guy
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Schiraldi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 4:46 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [freenet-tech] Off-Topic: Ideas for a FreeNet Process
> >
> >
> > > One would assume that the software was not downloaded automatically.
A
> > > person, somewhere, decided that he/she wanted the software to begin
> with.
> >
> > I thought that the whole point of this proposal was that the software
> > actually was downloaded automatically, without any action or
notification
> of
> > the owner of the machine -- an extension of the Freenet "nobody knows
> > exactly what's stored on their node" philosophy to "nobody knows exactly
> > what's running on their node".
> >
> > Stefan brought up the difficulty of preventing endless loops or other
> > resource hogs, and JF's proposed solution was to scan code before
running
> > it. But as the record player stories in "Godel, Escher, Bach"
brilliantly
> > illustrate, that approach cannot succeed.
> >
> > Your scanner can always be tricked, it's a mathematical fact, unless you
> > restrict code to the kind of bounded loops you brought up. But if you
only
> > run bounded-loop code, you're shutting out virtually all useful
> > programs. Anything that acts like a server. Anything that looks like an
> > application -- imagine if Microsoft Word said, "Sorry, i'm only allowed
to
> > loop one more time before i have to terminate. Oops, there it goes.
Bye!"
> >
> > However, just because the scanner approach can't work, all is not lost.
> >
> > A task scheduler might work. Let a subprocess run for a set amount of
> time,
> > then swap it out. And like Freenet's "cache data closer and closer to
the
> > requesters" policy, such a network could move the process closer and
> closer
> > to the person who's running it -- that way, someone who tries to DOS the
> > network with hundreds of little dumb programs will find those little
dumb
> > programs moving closer and closer, until only the nearest node is
dragged
> to
> > a halt.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mike Schiraldi
> > Verisign Applied Research
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > freenet-tech mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > freenet-tech mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> freenet-tech mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
>
_______________________________________________
freenet-tech mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
