On Monday 19 May 2008 20:26, Michael Rogers wrote: > 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.
Hmmm, I thought you were arguing that the latency would be unacceptable for a message board system? Also how would you prevent DoS? > > > 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. Broadcast routing requires manual filtering, no? In order to prevent DoS? > > > 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. True, but it has other problems. With passive requests, a message system would likely have almost exactly the same performance on a high latency Freenet as on a broadcast-routed network. > > Cheers, > Michael
pgp7y3UM4d8OO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
