> And 99.999% of users will take the pure-opennet route, unfortunately. > > It is entirely legitimate to debate what advantages darknet has, and > even to create advantages artificially in order to encourage users to > behave in a sensible fashion. We already have code which restricts what > users can easily do in order to ensure that the network works (i.e. load > limiting). Providing incentives for darknet is exactly the same > principle. > > I am reluctant to support opennet - and so is oskar apparently - until > we have decided how we are going to tempt users from opennet to darknet. > It really is critical that we build a substantial darknet, because of > recent events. Freenet being banned in a western country is no longer > science fiction. The DADVSI has just passed in France, including the > Vivendi amendments; it may still be blocked by the Constitutional > Council. > Even if DADVSI is passed, the case of Freenet remains debatable. In fact, DADVSI says that it's forbidden to develop networks being explicitly designed for illegal file sharing. As you can guess, this is stupid: How judges will define if a network is designed for that or not ? It's even more true for Freenet, as the main goal is the freedom of speech, and clearly not illegal file sharing.
> Hopefully it will not come into force until after our 2 french > SoC students have finished thier work, otherwise we're in serious > trouble. > I'm not sure that the Freenet project has to worry about it because it's not a french foundation. So in the worst case, I think it will only have an impact on nextgens and myself. In any case, they will attack the classical p2p networks (as eDonkey) in first. So when DADVSI will be passed, I think we will have at least some months before they find us. > At the EU level the IPRED2 could have the same effect (unlikely > to enter into force in less than 2 years though, and there's a chance > it'll be blocked by the FFII, but not if they push the community patent > at the same time). > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 10:06:13AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Devl mailing list > > Devl at freenetproject.org > > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl -- Jerome Flesch.
