Matthew Toseland wrote: >> Who says we need 8 GB per exchange for it to be viable? Seems to me that >> even a few megabytes a day would be useful in a lot of places (or a few >> kilobytes if you can choose which channels to participate in). > > Only if it's a broadcast system, and like I said, they can already do that.
There's already a sneakernet-based discussion system with channels and strong pseudonyms? I don't think so. > E.g. in Cuba, people use sneakernet to distribute illegal copies of western > films just as they do video of government officials getting hammered in > debating with students. Sure, basic sneakernets already exist, but that doesn't mean more advanced sneakernets are redundant. > I was hoping for more diverse usage (as in cuba where internet connections > are > illegal, or near future china where even darknet freenet may be blocked). Yeah, I think we have similar goals in mind, we just disagree about whether a high-latency variant of Freenet is the best way to achieve them. > However a modern underground organisation isn't necessarily a strict > hierarchy. Right, but it isn't necessarily a routable small world either. My point is that Freenet relies on the social network having a certain form, whereas Usenet-style flooding doesn't. Cheers, Michael _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
