> Well, I have never heard or read that Toad said that, but the > response to anyone that did say that is that the darknet is there so > that it is available to those that need it. If people don't need the > security offered by participating in a darknet, then they should use > the opennet.
exactly, and users already do so in IRC or the auto-link adders. > > > If really nobody wants to use darknet, whats the point in keeping > > it with all > > forces? > > Even if most people don't need a darknet, it doesn't mean that nobody > needs a darknet. You missunderstood me, I don't want to remove darknet. But Toad tells us if we would do an opennet nobody (1%) would use the darknet. I think he is absolutly right in this observation, but right now those other 99% wont even try freenet. > Perhaps not, for you. Don't be too sure about that. I just face reality which is, if someone is interested in freenet and wants to run a darknet node, he wont find 3 friends in general. In a big opennet the possibility for users of a darknet is much better, because more of the friends are already connected. If its open or dark isnt too important then... my connections count dropped from around 40 to 16 and I am bored in searching new connections every week... 3 connections are simply not enough even when you have reliable friends. Lets do an estimate: lets say avg uptime 12 hours a day. To have 3 friends up all the time (in 99% of the cases) you need. 3 * p[((0.5^x) > 0.01)] => x = 20 and this is only the case if the downtime is independend, which is unlikely since your friends are in the same time zone.
