Re: [freenet-chat] Scientology strikes again
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 11:34:55AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > > On 24 Jun 2006, at 10:29, Josh Steiner wrote: > >what was this? it just redirects to http://www.scientology.org/ > > Taking a website critical of you, and redirecting it to your own > website these guys have no sense of shame at their blatant > censorship effort, but I guess believing in intergalactic aliens does > weird things to your sense of right and wrong. I don't think their beliefs have that much to do with it actually. :| I wonder if advocating mirroring xenu.org, or the fishman papers, to freenet is a violation of IPRED2... :) > > Ian. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Scientology strikes again
It used to be a takedown notice. Somebody probably has a copy of before (from google) and after saved somewhere. On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 10:29:28AM -0700, Josh Steiner wrote: > what was this? it just redirects to http://www.scientology.org/ > > Matthew Toseland wrote: > >http://codebot.org/notice.html > > > >Thanks to ian for finding this. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Scientology strikes again
what was this? it just redirects to http://www.scientology.org/ Matthew Toseland wrote: http://codebot.org/notice.html Thanks to ian for finding this. ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- tasty electronic music vittles -- bluevitriol.com the only music blog you need-- playtherecords.com you are the dj. interactive music -- improbableorchestra.com random observations of the bizarre -- vitriolix.com ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [freenet-chat] Arguments against the Darknet
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Colin Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes I'd like to use this opportunity to disagree with the current .7 strategy of the darknet- I've done it before, but this is the Chat list, so It's not Off-topic to have a discussion about it. I'd like to start of by admitting that I probably know the least about the subject, compared with anyone else in the room. This isn't a pissing match, I just want freenet to be the best it can be. We all do. That's why we're here. The darknet model should be supplemented with an opennet SOON- I personally know 4 friends of mine who I have spoken with in person, who have not wanted to use freenet in it's current state. I'll attempt to discuss some concerns below. I've tried to intend my thoughts below, for ease of reading. The first is the idea of trust in Freenet .7 is complete- You argue that you should only join with your real life friends, That your peers are people that you trust, but this breaks down for a few reasons. 1) The first is that it doesn't fit the Social networking model that we're looking to model after. In Milgrim's experiments (which, btw, were seldom as successful as his first attempt), he found that the best results came from the occasional long distance link. a) In real life we often have these- For example, I am < 4 steps from Bill Gates- My Pastor knows a friend of a friend, etc. The problem is, these long distance links, such as My Pastor, aren't necessarily people I trust on a deep level. b) These weak links are often Largely grouped- Again, My Pastor- There are several hundred people in his congregation. If each of these people linked to him, we'd get ubernodes, which you disagree with (See my other e-mail). 2) Trust isn't universal a) The freenet .7 model gives them complete trust- I trust my flatmate not to download CP, but I don't trust him not to download an illegial MP3 file. Do I link with him? Do I need to find people with whom I agree about everything? b) People are desperate- Think about our chinese dissident- He wants to learn more about the Western world, and to write and publish about democracy. So he links with other people who are writing about democracy.. He wants the information. But he knows that a number of them are otherwise untrustworthy people. Even though they all share a love of democracy, should they link to one another? 3) We may never get to the point that freenet is "Big enough" a) Sanity has argued on a Gmail model, where freenet is the "in- thing", and people are looking for ways to get into it. I) The number of people who want a truely anonymous network are far fewer than the people who want a GB of free e-mail. II) And even if we DID get that level of success, those links weren't traded to people that were trusted. there were automted gmail invite traders Gmail invites were sold on eBay, etc. It's not the best model for emulation. b) People go to the path of least resistance- I) It's always going to be easier to go to #freenet-refs, than it is going to be to find friends who use the service. Promiscuous linking is just easier! II) More people care about speed than absolute privacy- Look at how popular BitTorrent is. * The best model will allow top speed for people who don't care as much, but more privacy for people who do * The right way to bring this about is be KEEPING THE DARKNET, but layering an openet on top of it. * People who care a lot about privacy use the darknet- People who are desperate or want speed, use the OpenNet. 4) People are afraid of the Darknet a) People are afraid of manually choosing to link- I) For the reasons we outlined earlier, people don't know 100% that their friends can be trusted in every domain II) Because of that, they are afraid to link with people. they don't want to be associated with a "Bad Guy" * Rightfully or wrongly, they are worried (I've had actual potential users say this), that they will link with a person who, unknowingly to them when they linked to him, does Bad Things. * Freenet has always had a bit of a public scare because of
[freenet-chat] Arguments against not utilizing Ubernodes
I'd like to use this opportunity to disagree with the current .7 strategy of not utilzing large nodes- I've done it before, but this is the Chat list, so It's not Off-topic to have a discussion about it. As per my other e-mail, I'd like to start of by admitting that I probably know the least about the subject, compared with anyone else in the room. This isn't a pissing match, I just want freenet to be the best it can be. We all do. That's why we're here. I've tried to intend my thoughts below, for ease of reading. I've talked with Ian, Nextgens, Toad, aphophis, SinnerG, and anyone else who was interested about the role of Ubernodes- I admit I don't understand things as well as others, but I hope that other people who agree with me might join this discussion. 1) Users tend to prefer Speed to Anonymity- a) Look at the Success of networks like Bittorrent- All the peers downloading a file are completely exposed, but people enjoy using it because they can get a file quickly. b) While the focus of Freenet is different, we can still let USERS make that tradeoff. I) There are a lot of tweaks that could be made, to make things faster. * Increasing the check for new editions exponentially, for instance * Or fully utilizing ubernodes II) As it is, there are people, such as SinnerG, Apophis, and myself, who are BEGGING to make freenet faster! 2) Freenet is about giving the users control. a) The project should give users control whenever possible, assuming it doesn't remove significant security from others I) If a user wants to route their data through a fast server, shouldn't we give them that option? b) Trust levels, as mentioned by Toad on the Devl mailing list are a good start, but there are more trusts that can be done. I) Lets say I trust my friend quite a bit, and set him to a high trust level.. Why not fully utilize his connection to me, if it's otherwise empty? II) If I've set him to a high trust level, I'm presumably OK routing more requests through his node. * As it is, requests are more or less random among non-backed off peers. * If I trust my friend, I'd be OK preferring to send through him c) Implementing a NG-style, stochastic modeling system ensures that users are properly utilizing resources. 3) The current strategy is fighting a symptom, not the problem. a) We can already achieve Ubernode-like results using bands of smaller nodes. I) If I set up 10 mini-nodes, all inner linked, and each connected to 10-15 peers, I could harvest just as much data on net network II) The network would see these as different nodes, and fully utilize them. III ) Multiple IP addresses to run on are cheap ;) b) The problems with Ubernodes are mitigated if the data is stored other places as well. I) If freenet used proper NG-style modeling, it would always draw from the fastest source, which is usually going to be a point between the ubernode, and the direct user. II) Once the user has downloaded it, by default it's in his node anyway. c) Let's find ways of working to utilize freenet nodes fully, and safely, so that when the bad guys come, and start EvilNodes, we're already doing well enough that people don't flock to them. 4) We want more people to use Freenet- This brings more nodes to route, more exposure, and MORE MONEY, which means more dev-time. a) As it is, the network is awash with Backoffs. I) We're not entirely sure how to fix it. II) Some of the solutions proposed seem more like guesses. b) Users are more likely to use a faster net I) People get frustrated with freenet speed. II) It's a lot better than .5, but it's a LOT slower than it should be. III) People join things just for speed- See 1) above. c) The more people who use the network, the more money the network brings in d) We can utilize ubernodes now, and move back later. I) Right now, Ubernodes are one of the best tools for making the network run faster. II) After the network is bigger, we can back off of them. * The network will natually back off from them- The can't keep up with 1 users, for one. For another, No one node can compete with 1 smaller nodes. III) Let's take the advantage in the short term, so that we can better build the long term. I'll be happy to discuss this with anyone who's interested. It's a serious issue, and I'm trying to go about things the Right way. ___ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[freenet-chat] Arguments against the Darknet
I'd like to use this opportunity to disagree with the current .7 strategy of the darknet- I've done it before, but this is the Chat list, so It's not Off-topic to have a discussion about it. I'd like to start of by admitting that I probably know the least about the subject, compared with anyone else in the room. This isn't a pissing match, I just want freenet to be the best it can be. We all do. That's why we're here. The darknet model should be supplemented with an opennet SOON- I personally know 4 friends of mine who I have spoken with in person, who have not wanted to use freenet in it's current state. I'll attempt to discuss some concerns below. I've tried to intend my thoughts below, for ease of reading. The first is the idea of trust in Freenet .7 is complete- You argue that you should only join with your real life friends, That your peers are people that you trust, but this breaks down for a few reasons. 1) The first is that it doesn't fit the Social networking model that we're looking to model after. In Milgrim's experiments (which, btw, were seldom as successful as his first attempt), he found that the best results came from the occasional long distance link. a) In real life we often have these- For example, I am < 4 steps from Bill Gates- My Pastor knows a friend of a friend, etc. The problem is, these long distance links, such as My Pastor, aren't necessarily people I trust on a deep level. b) These weak links are often Largely grouped- Again, My Pastor- There are several hundred people in his congregation. If each of these people linked to him, we'd get ubernodes, which you disagree with (See my other e-mail). 2) Trust isn't universal a) The freenet .7 model gives them complete trust- I trust my flatmate not to download CP, but I don't trust him not to download an illegial MP3 file. Do I link with him? Do I need to find people with whom I agree about everything? b) People are desperate- Think about our chinese dissident- He wants to learn more about the Western world, and to write and publish about democracy. So he links with other people who are writing about democracy.. He wants the information. But he knows that a number of them are otherwise untrustworthy people. Even though they all share a love of democracy, should they link to one another? 3) We may never get to the point that freenet is "Big enough" a) Sanity has argued on a Gmail model, where freenet is the "in- thing", and people are looking for ways to get into it. I) The number of people who want a truely anonymous network are far fewer than the people who want a GB of free e-mail. II) And even if we DID get that level of success, those links weren't traded to people that were trusted. there were automted gmail invite traders Gmail invites were sold on eBay, etc. It's not the best model for emulation. b) People go to the path of least resistance- I) It's always going to be easier to go to #freenet-refs, than it is going to be to find friends who use the service. Promiscuous linking is just easier! II) More people care about speed than absolute privacy- Look at how popular BitTorrent is. * The best model will allow top speed for people who don't care as much, but more privacy for people who do * The right way to bring this about is be KEEPING THE DARKNET, but layering an openet on top of it. * People who care a lot about privacy use the darknet- People who are desperate or want speed, use the OpenNet. 4) People are afraid of the Darknet a) People are afraid of manually choosing to link- I) For the reasons we outlined earlier, people don't know 100% that their friends can be trusted in every domain II) Because of that, they are afraid to link with people. they don't want to be associated with a "Bad Guy" * Rightfully or wrongly, they are worried (I've had actual potential users say this), that they will link with a person who, unknowingly to them when they linked to him, does Bad Things. * Freenet has always had a bit of a public scare because of CP concerns. I'm not going to debate that here. But people don't want to SPECIFICALLY, and KNOWINGLY CHOOSE--- to link with a person who might do CP. b) We need money! I) We need users to get donations. II) Users are afraid of the darknet III) It's worth spending developer time on things that will improve the number of people in the network, and number of people donating, c) Implementing Opennet will help get more users, which helps get more donations. I'll be happy to discuss this with anyone who's interested. It's a serious issue, and I'm trying to go about
