On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Ken Snider wrote: > Colin Davis wrote:
>> Wouldn't the easiest way to solve this just be to let the node continue to >> use the network, at degraded speed? Alternatively, at full speed. It could be argued that the majority of nodes will update anyway, *if it is easy enough*. > But what if one of the reasons for the Mandatory build is that the prior > client was doing something unhealthy to the network? Or that some fundamental > routing change was made that causes them to be unable to "speak" the same > protocol any longer? > > That's why I had suggested some form of updates-only protocol that could be > long-lived. Or in other words, "some form of new attack vector that could be hard to fix". I'm puzzled by the attitude towards this. We have a network designed to safely disseminate data. Periodically, the node needs to safely fetch data. I'm sorry, is the solution too obvious? Face it. Either the network is good enough (and robust enough) to allow people to get their updates through the network itself, or it isn't. And if the developers don't trust the network enough to even distribute updates to the software, why should I as a user even bother? The fact that this is even an issue (and that the mandatory builds are so common) should be a cause for any potential user to think twice if this, that is, Freenet, really is the way to go. Some sort of disclosure: I do not currently use Freenet. I do like Freenet though, I think it's the best thing currently available (more or less..) for anonymous communication and publication. And I would very much like to use it in the future, if I can. I'm not here to flame. MAgnus
