On Tuesday 20 May 2008 15:23, Michael Rogers wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > > Hmmm, I thought you were arguing that the latency would be unacceptable for a > > message board system? > > I was arguing that you couldn't mix ten-second latency with ten-day > latency in the same system. Usenet messages used to take several days to > reach the furthest corners of the net because some connections were only > active at night, and people still found it useful. > > > Also how would you prevent DoS? > > I'm not sure - hashcash might help, and maybe fair queueing to limit the > scope of the attack to nodes near the attacker. A high-latency version > of Freenet would also have to solve this problem.
True, but it would use different means to do it: some form of token passing. > > > Broadcast routing requires manual filtering, no? In order to prevent DoS? > > Usenet uses broadcast - I don't know how it deals with DoS but I guess > most servers have a limit on the number of messages per user per day, > and if a group gets really badly spammed people just curse and > unsubscribe (so the network no longer needs to distribute the spam). Hmmm, perhaps. > > > With passive requests, a message system would likely have almost exactly the > > same performance on a high latency Freenet as on a broadcast-routed network. > > Only if you eliminated round-trips (eg redirects, splitfiles, SSK pubkey > caching), which would require different data formats and a different > protocol, meaning the high-latency and low-latency networks would have > separate content and separate applications. At that point I think it > would be fair to ask why the two networks were bundled together under > the same name. Depends on the usage, doesn't it? For widely subscribed message boards, redirects wouldn't delay things more than one local round-trip, no? IMHO the web (even if it's high latency) plus usenet is more useful than just usenet. However, high latency Freenet may not be feasible because of swapping... > > Cheers, > Michael -------------- 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/20080520/c8b25445/attachment.pgp>
