Matthew Toseland wrote: >> Bluetooth? > > Even less bandwidth than wifi, no? We need several gigabits (over a range > measured in feet) for it to be viable.
Who says we need 8 GB per exchange for it to be viable? Seems to me that even a few megabytes a day would be useful in a lot of places (or a few kilobytes if you can choose which channels to participate in). >> That would be a very valuable system, I just don't see what it's got to >> do with Freenet. > > Ummm, the fact that it would be a routable small world darknet? That's an assumption, not a fact. As far as I know there's little reason to assume that the contact graphs of clandestine political organisations are routable small worlds, let alone to assume that the combined contact graph of several diverse organisations is a routable small world. Cheers, Michael
