Sounds centralised, and not very freenet-ish. Note that if an ISP had a court order, they'd just wait for it to rotate, and then track it.
On Wednesday 14 May 2008 16:22, Dan wrote: > >I still don't see how you are going to distribute one node over 8 > >peers. And I don't understand what you are talking about with 10 - 15 > >minutes either. > > Using the people running a Chat Application as a Miniture Server to run > an applet, Say a 6 person Chat Room. The idea would be that the Mini > Server maintains basic communications I would guess in a "T" form to a > back up server which in turn has 2 it maintains. > > The primary server being located at the bottom of the "T" > > The Channel as it is has the locations where to meet up should the > primary server fail for what ever reason Net Burp, BSoD, Power Outage. > > The Primary Server functions in that role for 10-15-20 minutes then > pass's the Role of Primary to the Center of the "T" being released from > the role of server for that group and seeks out a new job for another 20 > mins. The New Primary Mini Server once it has its 3 new replacements > releases its 2 back ups and those two then seek out new job assignments. > > The Chat Clients pick the 4 for the job not the servers. > > Moving the Server Element in this form every what ever minutes limits > the value of any recording being done at that location, IP Tracking on > the mini - server would result in 20 mins or what ever of activity that > is further buffered by being communications between the server applet > and 6 Chat Clients functioning as a TOR style relay > > This prevents any tracking of the data exchange by ISP or even by an > official serving as a CHATTER. > > 1. the Channel that forms the members have the keys not the server so > the converstaion is not able to be monitored. > > 2. The Client Members are the ones that pick up the untrusted components > to fill the "T" not the mini server. This being the case even if the > Mini Server is being ran on an officials site for monitoring they are > only getting relay address points and not user IP anything. > > 3. Moving in a fairly short time also prevents any pattern checking to > be used against it. > > Ignoring the concept of requiring a Court Order and such, the Red Tape > on just an ISP to ISP call asking to quickly start to trace on the > connections happening around IP Blaa would see the server applet move > and the group before any form of cooperation in that form could be attained. > > Granted if the IP's are all with in a single ISP they would not have > that issue but the internet spans not only companies but borders. > > The bandwidth use could also allow the movement of 1/2 a data package as > well for the FreeNet allowing for a server that is chatting only to > still play TOR Relay for the Free Net. > > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20080515/9d7caa9c/attachment.pgp>
