On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 04:41:07PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 10 Jul 2006, at 15:04, Matthew Toseland wrote: > >Secondly, as I have stated already, I think it would be a MAJOR > >strategic mistake to deploy opennet without some significant and well > >publicised benefits to getting darknet connections. > > There already is, running a "darknet only" node means it is much > harder for anyone to tell that you are running Freenet. I really > don't think we should waste any time on gimmicks to encourage people > to use Freenet in any particular way.
And who will you connect to? One or two of your friends who are running opennet. The darknet will not grow significantly if this is the only advantage. > > >But we need additional incentives or releasing an opennet will simply > >result in nobody using the darknet. > > If the real incentive for using a darknet is insufficient, then so be > it. I don't think we should be wasting our time on gimmicks. If there is no darknet then there is no point in having freenet. > > >Furthermore, we continue to have serious issues with load > >balancing, and > >we need to deploy a new storage strategy. Deploying opennet at this > >point would make a messy situation a lot messier. > > They are two valid arguments, but the whole "we can't deploy opennet > until we have some gimmicks to prevent everyone from using it" > argument isn't very persuasive at all. These relate to condition 3. They do not relate to "gimmicks". > > Ian. -- 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/20060711/7121b7b2/attachment.pgp>
