On Tuesday 19 August 2008 20:57, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Matthew Toseland > <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > > On Tuesday 19 August 2008 16:17, Ian Clarke wrote: > >> Incidentally, where did the '5 friend' requirement come from. > >> > >> Is opennet more secure than having 4 friends? > > > > Opennet is probably more secure than having only 1 friend ... unless you are > > reasonably confident that they are not evil. > > > > Five friends is just a guesstimate for adequate performance and connectivity. > > So why require it? By requiring it, you are forcing people with only > 4 friends to either use opennet, or not use Freenet.
Okay, so if we don't require it, we need to change the wording slightly. Suggestions? I intend to access information that could get me arrested, imprisoned, or worse. I am worried about my government or ISP blocking Freenet. I understand that Freenet is experimental and *cannot* ensure security against certain known attacks, but I accept the risks compared to the alternatives. Freenet will only connect to your friends nodes, so **you must have friends using Freenet already, and connect to them** (performance will be very poor if there are fewer than 5). ??? > > Ian. > > -- > Ian Clarke > CEO, Uprizer Labs > Email: ian at uprizer.com > Cell: +1 512 422 3588 > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080819/ca11c1af/attachment.pgp>
