-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 30 May 2006, at 08:22, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 11:09:53PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: >> >> 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. > > That is not the only way to make it easy to establish connections. No, its just the most flexible way, that can enable all sorts of mechanisms for establishing connections, both those we have thought of already, and those we haven't. > Do you have any other concrete proposals? FCP support for connection management will enable all sorts of options, including convenient sending and receiving of connections via email. > I did hope to be able to > distribute invitation files, which would be a once-only invite > allowing > you to connect even if you don't have a node yet. The problem is > that if > both parties are NATted (and they usually are), this won't work > because > they need to know each others' IP addresses. So I'm not sure how we > can > make it easy to connect. ARKs may help here. > My original objection stands to FCP connection management: 99% of the > usage of FCP connection management will be for grotesque hacks which > produce bogus opennets without the right topology. That demonstrates a rather condescending view of client authors. Anyway, as I have said before, the point is moot because people are *already* implementing "grotesque hacks" using fproxy, we need to provide a better alternative, and the best way to do that is to provide proper support in FCP, which will include concrete advice about how to ensure the kind of clustering required for small world. > The remaining 1% will > be for fproxy replacements and the like. But if you have any specific > examples of things that you could do other than automated > connection to > random published peers, I am willing to listen to that. *Any* attempt to implement a more user-friendly mechanism for establishing connections, which may in many cases be platform specific, will require exposure of connection management functionality via FCP. Options include email-based solutions, IRC plugins, AIM plugins, and all sorts of other things. Generally, when you are trying to stop your users from doing things where there is an entirely legitimate reason for them to do it, on the basis that they can't be trusted, you are on the losing side of the argument (and you are in bad company, this is the kind of attitude that gives rise to awful ideas like DRM). Ian. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin) iD8DBQFEfHEmQtgxRWSmsqwRAmI4AJ47dvK1dZQn0765qWxboM/mCoI+mQCfVkKp 1oljoCbOtbrjFt+U4KPKd0A= =Efyw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
