> > There is always a trade-off between security and efficiency. Talking to > > unknown nodes is a security risk. It is absolutely essential that you give > > There is a difference between trade offs and breaking the system > though. If something like this turns out breaking the system, then we > simply can't have it.
I'm sure it wouldn't break the system. As sure as is possible without simulation, that is. The only difference between a private cluster and and any other part of the network, as far as the network is concerned is that 1) the nodes inside the cluster don't every send messages to nodes which they find out about from DataSource fields, and 2) nodes inside the cluster (not counting the periphery) never reset the DataSource field to themselves. This means that path compression will happen around the cluster but not in the cluster. This would be bad if the cluster was very wide as every request routed to it would have to go all the way through it. No hopping into or out of the middle (that's the point, after all, that the entrance and exit is contained to the periphery). However, private clusters will most likely be somewhat close to fully connected graphs, so they will not be very wide. A private cluster should act just like a node except that it will absorb 2 or 3 hops from the HTL instead of 1. It is arguable whether private clusters will be fully connected graphs since it is theoretically possible to construct other topologies. However, I see no reason that other topologies would develop. A private cluster is based on a web of trust. Such things tend to be close-knit circles rather than webs. That's also the most beneficial network topology since the people you trust most likely share common interests so your private cluster can act as a communal cache. _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
