On 15 Aug 2006, at 12:17, Matthew Toseland wrote: > 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,
It is far more secure than #freenet-refs, and it is no more centralized than Freenet is already given that the software all comes from a single source. > and > because it is of no value whatsoever in hostile environments, In which case users will opt to create darknet connections, so the availability of opennet won't hurt > and > because the darknet will continue to expand, much of it (an increasing > part of it) true darknet connections You are dreaming. I would be surprised if more than 2% of the connections in the current so-called darknet are between people that actually know and trust each-other. Why won't you accept that the current situation isn't a darknet by any stretch of the imagination, it is a centralized, extremely cumbersome opennet that probably doesn't conform to a small-world topology? Failing to give people a proper opennet option is only prolonging the current unacceptable situation while significantly inhibiting Freenet's adoption. > , especially as we sort out the > current performance problems. (Which will be much easier to deal with > while we are still testing darknet). Oh? How do you know that the lack of a small world topology in the connections created through #freenet-refs isn't contributing to the problem? As I see it, opennet may well remove a potential source of these problems. > Technically, because I'm convinced that opennet will make a lot of > things much harder. And yet you have provided no support for this claim. I have pointed out that opennet is simply another way for people to establish connections, no more likely (indeed significantly less likely) to cause problems than #freenet-refs and other such mechanisms, and much better than those approaches in almost every measurable way (usability, scalability, user friendliness etc). > 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. I have no objecting to waiting for a simulation provided this precondition doesn't become an excuse to procrastinate. Opennet must be one of our highest priorities. Ian. Ian Clarke: Co-Founder & Chief Scientist Revver, Inc. phone: 323.871.2828 | personal blog - http://locut.us/blog -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060815/b8359e50/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060815/b8359e50/attachment.pgp>
