Ruud Javi wrote:
>> Do we want semi-opennet support? This would be a way to connect, with
>> mutual advance consent, to peers of our direct peers? (There would be
>> measures taken to ensure that we don't connect to peers of their direct
>> peers).
>
> Well, I am not sure but I am not a fan of it.
>
> Semi-opennet to me sounds like the worst of two worlds. The idea of
> darknet is that you need tot trust your neighbors, but you are pretty
> safe to everyone else. I think a semi-opennet would give a less safe
> network, because people are connecting to people they have not added
> them selves. My guess is that people would turn it on because it would
> make Freenet faster, while it would also make it less safe for them imho.
>
> Further, you would still need to add some connections, so this would not
> bring in the big user group that is looking for an opennet-version of
> Freenet .7 at all.
>
> If you have some special reasons/ arguments for this semi-opennet,
> please post. If you want we could discuss about if there should be an
> opennet in Freenet .7 , and how it should look like. I have some other
> ideas to get people to freenet .7 that wants an opennet. Unfortunately I
> am already seeing a few weak points, so other idea's might be better :)
>
> greetings,
> Ruud
The thing is that a lot of people will have only one entry point, and what they
do is ask
their friend to connect them to that friend's friends, which is more secure
then being
connected to ubernodes or to random people on IRC. Think about it, who is
closer to you
and less likely to turn you in to LEA or copyright infringement agency a friend
of a
friend or a complete stranger?
- Volodya
--
Hi! I am a .SIG virus! Copy me to your SIG so that I can spread!
http://freedom.libsyn.com/ Voice of Freedom, Radical Podcast
http://www.whengendarmesleeps.org/ When Gendarme Sleeps, Anarchy's Zine of
Poetry
========================
"None of us are free until all of us are free."
~ Mihail Bakunin
