Matthew Toseland wrote: > Hmmm, I thought you were arguing that the latency would be unacceptable for a > message board system?
I was arguing that you couldn't mix ten-second latency with ten-day latency in the same system. Usenet messages used to take several days to reach the furthest corners of the net because some connections were only active at night, and people still found it useful. > Also how would you prevent DoS? I'm not sure - hashcash might help, and maybe fair queueing to limit the scope of the attack to nodes near the attacker. A high-latency version of Freenet would also have to solve this problem. > Broadcast routing requires manual filtering, no? In order to prevent DoS? Usenet uses broadcast - I don't know how it deals with DoS but I guess most servers have a limit on the number of messages per user per day, and if a group gets really badly spammed people just curse and unsubscribe (so the network no longer needs to distribute the spam). > 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. Only if you eliminated round-trips (eg redirects, splitfiles, SSK pubkey caching), which would require different data formats and a different protocol, meaning the high-latency and low-latency networks would have separate content and separate applications. At that point I think it would be fair to ask why the two networks were bundled together under the same name. Cheers, Michael _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
