I think we will have 3 types of user: Pure darknet - these people have an incentive to connect to as many people as they can as it will improve performance Mixed - These people have less pressure to connect to darknet nodes, but hopefully the pure darknet people can persuade them Opennet only - These people won't connect ot darknet nodes.
Really, it is up to the end-user. If they are happy to take the risks that come with promiscuity, then so be it, for those that aren't comfortable with this risk, the pure darknet option exists. The trade-off between security and convenience is one the end-user gets to make for themselves. Ian. On 30 Jun 2006, at 04:47, Oskar Sandberg wrote: > Ian Clarke wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> I don't think we necessarily have to prevent location swapping on >> opennet nodes, the destination sampling approach seems pretty >> robust, and as the network stabilizes, the number of location >> swaps should decrease. > > I don't think this matters either. A much bigger concern is that > the network could end up largely split into two - very few "open" > nodes talking to dark ones, and vice versa. For it to work, people > who are open would also have to want to authenticate people who > don't directly. > > A problem, in general, with this whole thing is that the incentives > for connecting to people are too small. It is hard to convince > people that they ought to go through the trouble of adding more > then a neighbor or two, if the only reason is that it is healthy > for the network (when they may not notice much difference themselves). > > When I first envisioned an applications of this type of Darknet, I > thought of it much more in the context of a IM/file sharing > application then Freenet. In such a system, people would have have > motivation to add "buddies" (presense, being able to surf their > share directly, etc) which they don't in Freenet... > > // oskar >
