I think we will have 3 types of user:
Pure darknet - these people have an incentive to connect to as many
people as they can as it will improve performance
Mixed - These people have less pressure to connect to darknet nodes,
but hopefully the pure darknet people can persuade them
Opennet only - These people won't connect ot darknet nodes.
Really, it is up to the end-user. If they are happy to take the
risks that come with promiscuity, then so be it, for those that
aren't comfortable with this risk, the pure darknet option exists.
The trade-off between security and convenience is one the end-user
gets to make for themselves.
Ian.
On 30 Jun 2006, at 04:47, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
Ian Clarke wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I don't think we necessarily have to prevent location swapping on
opennet nodes, the destination sampling approach seems pretty
robust, and as the network stabilizes, the number of location
swaps should decrease.
I don't think this matters either. A much bigger concern is that
the network could end up largely split into two - very few "open"
nodes talking to dark ones, and vice versa. For it to work, people
who are open would also have to want to authenticate people who
don't directly.
A problem, in general, with this whole thing is that the incentives
for connecting to people are too small. It is hard to convince
people that they ought to go through the trouble of adding more
then a neighbor or two, if the only reason is that it is healthy
for the network (when they may not notice much difference themselves).
When I first envisioned an applications of this type of Darknet, I
thought of it much more in the context of a IM/file sharing
application then Freenet. In such a system, people would have have
motivation to add "buddies" (presense, being able to surf their
share directly, etc) which they don't in Freenet...
// oskar
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
