Well, he seems to be saying that you can actually route within the restricted routes bloc - in the previous email, he said that it would "depend on the profiles"... I'd like to know how. Is it simply a matter of route it locally if possible, route it to A if you have to, and randomly pass it to a well-performing node?
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 02:33:52PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: > On 14 Oct 2005, at 13:49, jrandom at i2p.net wrote: > >>Well, my stock answer is that I2P is harvestable, and this is the > >>fundamental problem that we seek to rectify. > > > >Hrm, but for the reason's we've discussed over this epic thread, > >your stock answer is not correct. I2P's restricted route topology > >isn't something new, its been on the roadmap as I2P 2.0 for the > >past 2 years. You need a new stock answer ;) > > I tried to find more info on your restricted routes approach, and > from what I can gather, I2P would collapse if any more than a small > subset of the network elected to use restricted routes. In contrast, > Freenet 0.7 should happily deal with a case where 100% of the peers > linked exclusively to trusted peers. > > As such, it is rather disingenuous to argue that I2P is not > harvestable just because a small subset of the peers in the network > can remain hidden, the vast majority of the peers in I2P will and > indeed, must remain harvestable for the network to work. > > Ian. > > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20051014/7a5c0f7c/attachment.pgp>
