Hi Oskar, > WTF does "useful" mean here? Freenet's existence is only justified by > the fact that it, supposedly, can efficiently locate information - how > can it be "useful" to have to wait 10 minutes for a request on a network > of maybe a thousand peers? > > To me this all seems like circular logic. "Lets use Freenet because it > finds stuff in a limited number of hops." And then "We have to keep > increasing the number of hops or we can't find anything." > > Maybe we need to accept the fact that our model has, thus far, failed > completely and disastrously in pratice. Not to say we should give up: > there are still a lot of unexplored options, but the current network is > very obviously useless. All this beating of the dead horse is doing > nobody any good...
I agree. I honestly think that the current routing model can be made to work. I also honestly think that the way Freenet caches data is what's breaking the routing. I know I'm beating this drum regularly, but I've never been able to stimulate much discussion on the subject, and I'm not going to give it up until I feel I have... It would be nice to disable all caching (ie. Cache on inserts only), and actually get some real numbers as to how the routing algorithm works. What's the point of testing a routing algorithm that can route just about anywhere and hit a cached file? Up with Freenet! Down with caching! :-) Ray _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
