-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Nobody expects opennet to be implemented in the very near future, however in my opinion, there is an adequate basis upon which to implement an opennet that retains a small world network topology.
However, getting back to the original point of this thread, I say again, for darknet to succeed, we need to make it as easy as possible for people to establish connections. That means implementing FCP support for connection management. Ian. On 29 May 2006, at 09:21, Matthew Toseland wrote: > A naively implemented opennet will result in the same performance > problems as we had on 0.5. We don't have a strong theoretical basis, > load balancing would likely be different, routing flux would be much > worse, and getting onto the network would, while involving less human > effort, take much longer to get satisfactory performance - for exactly > the same reasons it takes so long on 0.5. > > THEREFORE I WILL NOT IMPLEMENT OPENNET IN THE NEAR FUTURE. > > True organic growth will happen on a larger scale when there is a bit > more content, when the current crisis regarding backoff has been > solved > (this is to do with bugs, it is not the systematic problem that > mrogers > will be looking at over the summer), and when the tools have > improved a > little. There is already a certain amount of organic growth. The > problem > with exponential growth (growth rate proportional to size) is that > it is > really slow at the beginning. > > On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 07:09:04PM +0300, Jusa Saari wrote: >> On Mon, 29 May 2006 12:29:23 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: >> >>> We're simply not ready to implement opennet. Oskar has shown no >>> interest >> >> I understand that. But please understand what I'm saying: You already >> _have_ an opennet. It doesn't matter if you are ready for it, it's >> what >> there currently *is*. >> >> The problem is simply that an average interested person has the >> choice of >> either getting noderefs from strangers or not getting into Freenet >> at all. >> Given those choices, Freenet essentially operates in opennet mode >> right >> now. >> >>> whatsoever in it, and without a sound theoretical basis we can't >>> and won't >>> do it. Also load balancing would probably be different and >>> routing churn >>> would likely be much more severe. In any case there is no reason why >>> organic growth can't happen if Freenet provides something of >>> value. The >> >> By organic, do you mean that a Freenet user invites his friends >> and they >> invite their friends and so on ? >> >> That's not how it works. You surf the web and happen to >> freenetprojct.org, >> and decide to try it. Or Slashdot publishes yet another Freenet >> story and >> the readers decide to give it a try. Or you read an Usenet post >> about it, >> or hear it from the IRC, or something like that. >> >> Usenet and IRC are close to friend telling friend -model, but web >> surfing >> sure isn't. >> >>> fact that it is so small and has so little functionality that it >>> doesn't >>> is purely a short term problem. >> >> Actually, as far as functionality is concerned, this seems to be >> the best >> incarnation of Freenet so far. I've carried actual discussions on >> Frost >> boards, where I can be reasonably sure that my message will reach the >> recipient. A succesfully opening freesite is a rule rather than the >> exception. It works great so far - but it has little *content*. >> >>> On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 11:13:18AM +0300, Jusa Saari wrote: >>>> On Sat, 27 May 2006 20:43:52 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 10:32:48AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: >>>>>> People are already starting to kludge their own mechanisms for >>>>>> adding >>>>>> connections via FProxy, for example: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.sinnerg.dotgeek.org/freenet/ >>>>>> >>>>>> The sooner we can support this explicitly using FCP, the less >>>>>> messy >>>>>> this is going to be... >>>>> >>>>> Come on, do you really think that would help matters? We have >>>>> enough >>>>> people trying to hack their own broken opennets together already >>>>> without making life easier for them! >>>>>> >>>>>> Ian. >>>> >>>> Current Freenet *is* an opennet. It is an opennet since most >>>> people get >>>> their noderefs from total strangers in IRC. They have little >>>> choice, >>>> since Freenet simply isn't large enough that an average person >>>> would >>>> know someone connected to it. The whole noderef hassle simply >>>> makes life >>>> more difficult for users, it does not provide any security >>>> whatsoever. >>>> >>>> Accept the facts and code according to them. Even if you somehow >>>> managed >>>> to enforce the darkness of Freenet, you'd simply ensure that it >>>> never >>>> grew beyond a very tiny inner circle. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list >>>> Tech at freenetproject.org >>>> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech >>>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin) iD8DBQFEe+GxQtgxRWSmsqwRArhlAJ0SIM/7h/3UPi/hrkf2T5s6EM852gCfRS0O BEcFdPq2mERoc8gmrUzY8pQ= =YVPU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
