On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 04:32:12AM -0600, Mark J Roberts wrote: <> > Am I the only one who has these preposterous court arguments > shredding up my brains? Like this one:
The goal is to make Freenet stable under attack - clearly if people can censor data completely by removing the key from their own node (or a couple of nodes) then the concept isn't working. But there is clearly also a limit to the amount of bad behavior that Freenet can hold up to - a single node routing completely wrong won't hurt the network, but if 50% of the nodes started doing it that would be a problem. There are many things that a node can do to try hurt the network, our hope (/wish) is that the network will be able to hold up against those who would do this. However, since there is inevitably a limit to how many attackers can be handled, it does make sense for us not to include and thus encourage functions that are hurtful to the network. It is possible to flood the network, but I think we'll all agree that a DoFlood FCP comment is a little unnecessary. I don't really see removing data as an action in the spirit of what we are trying to achieve, and beyond that I worry about confusing users (who might think that it actually deletes things from Freenet), so I have a hard time convincing myself why we should have such a function. On the other hand, all the silly "but my eyes were closed when I fired the gun" arguments are most definitely stupid. If something is possible, then it has to be considered as good as implemented, both for users and attackers (oh yeah, Gianni, you don't believe that...) -- Oskar Sandberg oskar at freenetproject.org _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
