Stephen Blackheath wrote on 8/9/00 6:25 pm: >MSN and AOL running a >freenet 'portal' is a thought >too horriffic to contemplate
I can see the commercials now: "127 bazilion months of freenet, free! Some restrictions apply." :) >I imagine we need some sort >of distributed database of >initial nodes for new nodes to >connect to. The hosts >involved in this database >could be hard-coded into the >node. I'm creating a soluton to this. I don't think it will be ready for 0.3 so I'm waiting till after the next release to show what I have so far. I posted a proposal on it not long ago but didn't get any response. I think hard-coded addresses are a bad idea because it becomes too centralized. I think I have a way around it. > Don't give the user >the option of entering >'freenet.spawn-of-satan-cor >poration.com'. In my solution, you could do this, but that woudn't be your only choice. > >On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, 1723 >wrote: >> not running own nodes will >cause a big handicap. >> >> assume MSN makes a big >node and says to its users: >"if you want to use freenet, >type xx.yy.zz.aa:bbbb as >node." their users 'd do >that, and 'd cause the >network to be very >centralized. (o.k, there'd be >a AOL-node, too). >> >> when they run own nodes, >the nodes will learn about >other nodes; MSN (or >whatever) won't be more >important than anything >other with time. the network >> 'd be decentral. when >restarting the node, the >node still knows the other >nodes. the users node won't >be known by anyone since it >doesn't store data, and >therefore doesn't change >datastore fields. >> >> (hope i tell the truth) > > > >_____________________________ >__________________ >Freenet-dev mailing list >Freenet-dev at lists.sourcefor >ge.net >http://lists.sourceforge.net/ >mailman/listinfo/freenet-de >v _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
