>Actually, the idea of such "subspaces" is completely besides the point of >Freenet. As far as I understand, its basic idea is to make "good" stuff look >just as the "bad" stuff to the point of it being impossible to distinguish >between the two in any other way than by actually requesting every document >on Freenet and looking at it contents.
Right. I think maybe the idea of subspaces that the person was talking about (the person who posted the idea), doesn't really violate this principle. First, by requesting only the content you want, and leaving the rest be, you exert a kind of censoring effect. You stop the stuff you don't request from propagating just a little bit. Second, once you do this your node starts to learn where to find the kind of information you request, and goes back to there for requests for similar keys. This has the effect that certain kinds of keys (and, roughly, certain kinds of information) get passed through the same channels, and stored on the same nodes. Thus, the nodes that are in that channel of information contribute space to that stuff, and not so much other stuff. Where I see a difference between the current way of things, and the subspace idea above, is that with the current way of things you can't *completely* filter certain kinds of stuff. There's a little bit of bleed-over. With the stated subspace idea, there's negative filtering, and with the currently existing subspace mechanism, there's positive filtering. Positive filtering (selectively giving the thumbs up) works better anyway. You can only help propagate the stuff you deem worthy. With negative filtering (selectively giving the thumbs down) stuff you deem unworthy could still get through. -todd _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
