On Sunday 03 August 2003 11:20 am, Gabriel K wrote:
> Compare freenet to a p2p file sharing network like DirectConnect. The main
> differance is that you don't have to upload the data you want to share to
> the network when you use DirectConnect. You just enter the network, and
> everyone can download you share pretty much at once. Now, DirectConnect (or
> kazaa or whatever) is not anonymous, true. But having to upload a share of
> 60GB before it becomes available to everyone is not the price a user wants
> to pay for anonymity. Furthermore, each node has to have HD space to store
> someone elses share in freenet.
But with a regular network, you have to upload it EVERY TIME somebody else
downloads it.
Well, other people with the file can contribute, but your net upload is still
greater.
There is the request-serving in Freenet to eat upload bandwidth, but you can
cap that.
> What I'm saying is, that a protocol for sharing data mutually anonymously
> should still let a user share it's data without having to upload it first.
> Also, a transfer between the source and the reciever should not use too
> many proxies in between. One might be enough to provide anonymity. And of
> course, it should be encrypted so that only the reciever can decrypt it.
You can achieve this by inserting at HTL 0. It won't make it very retrievable
though. One proxy could be compromised, and making it anonymous even if the
proxy is compromised, if possible, would require a total rewrite of the
Freenet protocol.
> I think most (all?) protocols for sharing data mutually anonymously is not
> optimised for large data. They seem to put the same weight on messages for
> queries and such, as on the data itself. I say this is wrong. Users want
> little overhead transfers. I think the weight of control messages (queries,
> answers and such) should be low compared to the data itself. So it should
> be OK that the overhead of finding the data is large (if it's 500% more
> than shortest/least hops/bandwidth it's ok), if that optimises the data
> transfer! Think big! :) The amount of data transfered is so much bigger
> than the amount of control messages! Optimise data transfers!
But what about small data like freesites? Latency is so much more important
than bandwidth there.
Large-file bandwidth is actually pretty decent. I've downloaded a 650MB movie
in just a few hours using a fresh transient node on a cable modem.
--
"I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they go by."
- Douglas Adams
Nick Tarleton - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGP key available
_______________________________________________
Tech mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
