Matthew Toseland wrote: >> Of course we don't >> want to stay in small, isolated networks forever; ideally we'd set up >> small networks with our friends and merge them into the big network >> later, but unfortunately I don't think Freenet's architecture can >> accommodate that. > > Why not? Because small, isolated networks are useless?
That's a pretty strong statement - are you talking about isolated Freenet networks or isolated networks in general? Because there are a lot of people using Direct Connect (not to mention private IRC channels, FTP servers, etc etc). Clearly the "one big network" approach and the "many small networks" approach both have their advantages. For example, you have no anonymity on a small network. On the other hand it's easier to find people to peer with - if you don't know any members of the big network, just start your own network with a couple of friends. All I'm trying to say is that in an ideal world we'd get the advantages of both approaches if people could set up their own small networks and later merge them into the big network. Cheers, Michael
