>
> I guess I'd want to know how much we're willing to trade off in
> performance and flexibility of the network for some modicum of
> security -- however small -- for the node operator. Is node operator
> security such a non-goal, and performance so overarchingly important,
> that NO COMPROMISE WHATSOEVER will be allowed? It doesn't seem worth
> doing a simulation if that's the case.
>
> However, what if we can show that protecting nodes and providing
> clustering will give (say) 40-60% of the response speed of an
> unclustered, path-folding network, without loss of data? Would that be
> sufficient to implement? What's the magic number?
Its less a question of performance than it is of all-out breaking the
network.
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
