On Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 10:47:01PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > Of course, we do lose some nice features which normal Freenet messages > have here - since node operators can now read the metadata in their > datastores, it is no-longer encrypted. We also lose the randomization > effect that we get from hashing keys. However, given that this is only > search information, is much smaller than most data and therefore > node-operator censorship is less important since it can be more widely > distributed, I don't think that this is a serious problem. Also, this > mechanism will augment the existing Freenet, not replace anything (the > datastore for the MetadataKeys can be kept separate). > > Implementation of this will dramatically reduce the functional > difference between Freenet and something like Google, Napster, or > Gnutella, while retaining Freenet's scalability.
Freenet doesn't have to do _everything_ .. Let Freenet excel at being one thing: a decentralized, quasi-anonymous, efficient system for inserting and retrieving data by key. Then create another system -- a decentralized, quasi-anonymous metadata search network. Let each network become optimized to perform its specific purpose. Incidentally, it would be possible with the 0.4 architecture and perhaps some modifications to support running distinct nodes of distinct P2P networks within the same Fred. -- # tavin cole # # "Technology is a way of organizing the universe so that # man doesn't have to experience it." # # - Max Frisch _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
