On 28 Jun 2006, at 02:23, Lars Juel Nielsen wrote: > On 6/28/06, Volodya <Volodya at whengendarmesleeps.org> wrote: >> > 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. >> >> But that is a silly argument. Why have FProxy filtering content. >> If people want security >> they can just view sites in plain text, can't they. But currently >> you aren't even warning >> people asking them what do they want to do with external links, >> but simply remove them. >> The reason for that is that when people ask somebody like me what >> to use for their >> anonymity on the internet, i tell them about freenet, with the >> opennet i will have to >> mention that they should make sure to go for darknet if they want >> to be truly anonymous. >> >> If you are approaching this from perspective "but people want it" >> then a lot of people >> want blocks to be marked by the extension of the file, so that >> they can say "i only want >> MP3 in my datastore" are you planning to implement this? Then why >> are you still going for >> the opennet? > > I'd much rather we only have darknet, opennet will be less secure and > less robust, a somewhat acceptable price for the ease of use, the > unacceptable part of the price is how much it will hurt the darknet by > taking all the users but those who truely neet it away.
Why do you assume the two would be mutually exclusive? You assume that if we deny people the opportunity to connect to an opennet, then they will join the darknet - but this simply isn't what we are seeing in practice. If we deny people opennet functionality, then they create their own opennet using public link exchange mechanisms which are cumbersome, extremely easy to compromise, and lead to poor network topology. Ian.
