On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 11:50:11AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > I did, and you didn't respond to my point. Why do you want to force > users to continue to use the current insecure, centralized, and > hideously inconvenient opennet for a second longer than a more > secure, decentralized, and convenient opennet option is available?
Politically, because the opennet is insecure and centralized, and because it is of no value whatsoever in hostile environments, and because the darknet will continue to expand, much of it (an increasing part of it) true darknet connections, especially as we sort out the current performance problems. (Which will be much easier to deal with while we are still testing darknet). Technically, because I'm convinced that opennet will make a lot of things much harder. Fortunately we will be able to simulate it in the not too distant future. We definitely should not deploy opennet without simulating it, any more than we should deploy token passing without sorting out its theoretical problems in simulation. > > Ian. > > On 15 Aug 2006, at 06:28, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > >Read my reply to the other thread. > > > >On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 10:43:15PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > >>One point, to be clear, is that nothing here will prevent those that > >>wish to only have their node talk to people they trust, from doing > >>so. We are talking about opennet for those that want the > >>convenience, and darknet for those that need the security. > >> > >>Ian. > >> > >>On 14 Aug 2006, at 22:24, Ian Clarke wrote: > >> > >>>I really don't understand all of this fretting and hand-wringing > >>>about opennet. Its basically nothing more than a vastly better way > >>>for people to do what they are already doing today with hideous > >>>(but regrettably necessary) kludges like #freenet-refs and http:// > >>>refex.s-coding.nl/. > >>> > >>>Opennet has the following advantages over what people are using now: > >>> > >>> - Several orders of magnitude more convenient for users (allowing > >>>ease of use approaching or exceeding mainstream P2P apps) > >>> - Decentralized and scalable > >>> - Should lead to vastly better network topology > >>> - We control it so we can take measures to make it more difficult > >>>to corrupt > >>> > >>>Disadvantages? Relative to what people are using now - none that I > >>>can think of. > >>> > >>>Some people may wish we lived in a fantasy world where everyone was > >>>willing to go through the trouble of carefully establishing trusted > >>>darknet connections, but we don't live in this world, and denying > >>>the clear advantages of opennet to our userbase will not lead to > >>>that fantasy. > >> > >>Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc. > >>phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog > >> > > > >>_______________________________________________ > >>Devl mailing list > >>Devl at freenetproject.org > >>http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > > > >-- > >Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org > >Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ > >ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. > >_______________________________________________ > >Devl mailing list > >Devl at freenetproject.org > >http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > > Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc. > phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog > > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060815/d89d10b0/attachment.pgp>
