[freenet-dev] WoT plugin (db4o ?)

[Julien Cornuwel]

Matthew Toseland a ?crit :

> If you actually have code, you should commit it somewhere, whether it's 
> finished and working or not. This makes life easier for others who might want 
> to review it.

Well, I have some. But it is far too ugly to publish it ATM ;)
I'll work on it this week-end and, maybe, publish it tomorrow evening.

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: 

[freenet-dev] WoT plugin (db4o ?)

[Julien Cornuwel]

Julien Cornuwel a ?crit :

> The other problem is how to store the trust values. With derby, I simply
> have 2 tables, one with identites, the other with the trust values and
> ids if the truster and the trustee. How can I do that with an OO
> database ? The only idea I have is :
> Create a class Trust containing reference to the trusted identity and
> trust value, and store a list of Trust objects in every identites. I
> can't figure how bad it would be for the memory consumption.

Hey ! I just thought about an ugly-but-working solution : to recreate
the relation with an object...

If the Trust class contains trust value and ids of truster and trustee,
I'm able to load only what I want. And I can easily find out what
identites are trusting one particular identity, what's not possible with
a trustlist contained in the identity.

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: 

[freenet-dev] WoT plugin (db4o ?)

[bbac...@googlemail.com]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Julien Cornuwel  wrote:
> I've been reading DB4O's whitepaper (mentionned in Toad's post) and I'm
> wondering if I could use it for the WoT plugin. I could get rid of Derby
> and it would make the deployment simpler if db4o is shipped with freenet.
>
> Query possibilities are sufficient to my needs but I've got a few problems :
>
>
> With a RDBM, I can simply do the calculation of scores in the database
> (with a trigger and stored procedures).
> With db4o, persistence would be easier but I worry about memory
> consumption if I have to load every identities in memory each time a
> trust value is updated. An identity is about 200-250B. You see the
> problem if we have 1.000.000 identites !

I know perst, and I think db4o works similar. When you load persistent objects,
the engine takes care what objects fit in the memory cache. So you can hold
millions of objects but not all of them are always in memory. This can lead to
longer access times in reality.

>
> The other problem is how to store the trust values. With derby, I simply
> have 2 tables, one with identites, the other with the trust values and
> ids if the truster and the trustee. How can I do that with an OO
> database ? The only idea I have is :
> Create a class Trust containing reference to the trusted identity and
> trust value, and store a list of Trust objects in every identites. I
> can't figure how bad it would be for the memory consumption.
>

In perst I use different storages. Each one can have a different cache
size. This
way I can spread the load. But it is also possible to hold all objects
in one storage.

>
> Do you think it is feasible and worth the work ?
>
>
> ___
> Devl mailing list
> Devl at freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
>



-- 
__
GnuPG key: (0x48DBFA8A)
Keyserver: pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de
Fingerprint:
477D F057 1BD4 1AE7 8A54 8679 6690 E2EC 48DB FA8A
__

[freenet-dev] WoT plugin (db4o ?)

[Matthew Toseland]

On Saturday 17 May 2008 14:21, Julien Cornuwel wrote:
> Julien Cornuwel a ?crit :
> 
> > The other problem is how to store the trust values. With derby, I simply
> > have 2 tables, one with identites, the other with the trust values and
> > ids if the truster and the trustee. How can I do that with an OO
> > database ? The only idea I have is :
> > Create a class Trust containing reference to the trusted identity and
> > trust value, and store a list of Trust objects in every identites. I
> > can't figure how bad it would be for the memory consumption.
> 
> Hey ! I just thought about an ugly-but-working solution : to recreate
> the relation with an object...
> 
> If the Trust class contains trust value and ids of truster and trustee,
> I'm able to load only what I want. And I can easily find out what
> identites are trusting one particular identity, what's not possible with
> a trustlist contained in the identity.
> 
If you actually have code, you should commit it somewhere, whether it's 
finished and working or not. This makes life easier for others who might want 
to review it.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 

[freenet-dev] WoT plugin (db4o ?)

[Julien Cornuwel]

I've been reading DB4O's whitepaper (mentionned in Toad's post) and I'm
wondering if I could use it for the WoT plugin. I could get rid of Derby
and it would make the deployment simpler if db4o is shipped with freenet.

Query possibilities are sufficient to my needs but I've got a few problems :


With a RDBM, I can simply do the calculation of scores in the database
(with a trigger and stored procedures).
With db4o, persistence would be easier but I worry about memory
consumption if I have to load every identities in memory each time a
trust value is updated. An identity is about 200-250B. You see the
problem if we have 1.000.000 identites !

The other problem is how to store the trust values. With derby, I simply
have 2 tables, one with identites, the other with the trust values and
ids if the truster and the trustee. How can I do that with an OO
database ? The only idea I have is :
Create a class Trust containing reference to the trusted identity and
trust value, and store a list of Trust objects in every identites. I
can't figure how bad it would be for the memory consumption.


Do you think it is feasible and worth the work ?

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: 

Re: [freenet-dev] WoT plugin (db4o ?)

[Julien Cornuwel]

Matthew Toseland a écrit :

> If you actually have code, you should commit it somewhere, whether it's 
> finished and working or not. This makes life easier for others who might want 
> to review it.

Well, I have some. But it is far too ugly to publish it ATM ;)
I'll work on it this week-end and, maybe, publish it tomorrow evening.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] WoT plugin (db4o ?)

[Matthew Toseland]

On Saturday 17 May 2008 14:21, Julien Cornuwel wrote:
> Julien Cornuwel a écrit :
> 
> > The other problem is how to store the trust values. With derby, I simply
> > have 2 tables, one with identites, the other with the trust values and
> > ids if the truster and the trustee. How can I do that with an OO
> > database ? The only idea I have is :
> > Create a class Trust containing reference to the trusted identity and
> > trust value, and store a list of Trust objects in every identites. I
> > can't figure how bad it would be for the memory consumption.
> 
> Hey ! I just thought about an ugly-but-working solution : to recreate
> the relation with an object...
> 
> If the Trust class contains trust value and ids of truster and trustee,
> I'm able to load only what I want. And I can easily find out what
> identites are trusting one particular identity, what's not possible with
> a trustlist contained in the identity.
> 
If you actually have code, you should commit it somewhere, whether it's 
finished and working or not. This makes life easier for others who might want 
to review it.


pgpRtD8ZA2lPi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] WoT plugin (db4o ?)

[Julien Cornuwel]

Julien Cornuwel a écrit :

> The other problem is how to store the trust values. With derby, I simply
> have 2 tables, one with identites, the other with the trust values and
> ids if the truster and the trustee. How can I do that with an OO
> database ? The only idea I have is :
> Create a class Trust containing reference to the trusted identity and
> trust value, and store a list of Trust objects in every identites. I
> can't figure how bad it would be for the memory consumption.

Hey ! I just thought about an ugly-but-working solution : to recreate
the relation with an object...

If the Trust class contains trust value and ids of truster and trustee,
I'm able to load only what I want. And I can easily find out what
identites are trusting one particular identity, what's not possible with
a trustlist contained in the identity.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] WoT plugin (db4o ?)

[bbackde]

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Julien Cornuwel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been reading DB4O's whitepaper (mentionned in Toad's post) and I'm
> wondering if I could use it for the WoT plugin. I could get rid of Derby
> and it would make the deployment simpler if db4o is shipped with freenet.
>
> Query possibilities are sufficient to my needs but I've got a few problems :
>
>
> With a RDBM, I can simply do the calculation of scores in the database
> (with a trigger and stored procedures).
> With db4o, persistence would be easier but I worry about memory
> consumption if I have to load every identities in memory each time a
> trust value is updated. An identity is about 200-250B. You see the
> problem if we have 1.000.000 identites !

I know perst, and I think db4o works similar. When you load persistent objects,
the engine takes care what objects fit in the memory cache. So you can hold
millions of objects but not all of them are always in memory. This can lead to
longer access times in reality.

>
> The other problem is how to store the trust values. With derby, I simply
> have 2 tables, one with identites, the other with the trust values and
> ids if the truster and the trustee. How can I do that with an OO
> database ? The only idea I have is :
> Create a class Trust containing reference to the trusted identity and
> trust value, and store a list of Trust objects in every identites. I
> can't figure how bad it would be for the memory consumption.
>

In perst I use different storages. Each one can have a different cache
size. This
way I can spread the load. But it is also possible to hold all objects
in one storage.

>
> Do you think it is feasible and worth the work ?
>
>
> ___
> Devl mailing list
> Devl@freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
>



-- 
__
GnuPG key: (0x48DBFA8A)
Keyserver: pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de
Fingerprint:
477D F057 1BD4 1AE7 8A54 8679 6690 E2EC 48DB FA8A
__
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] WoT plugin (db4o ?)

[Julien Cornuwel]

I've been reading DB4O's whitepaper (mentionned in Toad's post) and I'm
wondering if I could use it for the WoT plugin. I could get rid of Derby
and it would make the deployment simpler if db4o is shipped with freenet.

Query possibilities are sufficient to my needs but I've got a few problems :


With a RDBM, I can simply do the calculation of scores in the database
(with a trigger and stored procedures).
With db4o, persistence would be easier but I worry about memory
consumption if I have to load every identities in memory each time a
trust value is updated. An identity is about 200-250B. You see the
problem if we have 1.000.000 identites !

The other problem is how to store the trust values. With derby, I simply
have 2 tables, one with identites, the other with the trust values and
ids if the truster and the trustee. How can I do that with an OO
database ? The only idea I have is :
Create a class Trust containing reference to the trusted identity and
trust value, and store a list of Trust objects in every identites. I
can't figure how bad it would be for the memory consumption.


Do you think it is feasible and worth the work ?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

[freenet-dev] WoT plugin : decision

[Matthew Toseland]

On Wednesday 14 May 2008 17:54, Julien Cornuwel wrote:
> Matthew Toseland a ?crit :
> > On Monday 12 May 2008 18:14, you wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm having interrogations about the use of the WoT plugin and I'm
> >> confronted to a choice :
> >>
> >> The plugin is able to handle multiple local identites. But do you think
> >> it could be usefull to allow local identities to set different trust
> >> levels on other identities.
> > 
> > Yes, it's essential, otherwise it will be possible to identify that two 
local 
> > identities are the same because they publish identical trust lists. Of 
> > course, they'd have to be announced separately to maintain the illusion of 
> > separation, and then the user would have to be careful; ideally there 
would 
> > be two different *reading* clients as well as posting.
> >> Possibilities are :
> >>
> >> 1) One identity publish its trustlist and all local identities share the
> >> same trust tree.
> >> 2) Every local identity has to handle its own trust list and has its own
> >> trust tree. That implies that one identity might see someone while
> >> another won't.
> >>
> >> In my opinion, 1) would fit most uses of the plugin. Except the one
> >> where you share your node with a person you totally disagree with (quite
> >> unlikely, isn't it ?).
> >>
> >> The flaw of 2) is that every identity has to set its own trust values
> >> for every identities. An option could be to allow the user to set a
> >> "parent" identity that the new identity would share it's trust list with.
> >>
> >> What do you think ?
> > 
> > I think you should support completely separate identities which can't be 
> > easily linked together, just as Frost did.
> 
> Thanks to all for your thoughts. Here what I'll do :
> 
> Primary identities : You can create as much as you want. Each one has
> its own trust tree and can publish (or not) its trustlist.
> 
> Secondary identities : They see the trust tree of a chosen parent
> (primary) identity and can't publish a trust list.
> 
> That way, every use-case is possible and it is impossible to know if an
> identity is a secondary identity or a primary that doesn't publish its
> trustlist. And identites that publish their trustlist can't be tied
> together, because lists will be different...
> 
> 
> If you see a problem, talk now or never (tm) NextGen$ ;)

That sounds nice and flexible.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 

[freenet-dev] WoT plugin : decision

[Julien Cornuwel]

Matthew Toseland a ?crit :
> On Monday 12 May 2008 18:14, you wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm having interrogations about the use of the WoT plugin and I'm
>> confronted to a choice :
>>
>> The plugin is able to handle multiple local identites. But do you think
>> it could be usefull to allow local identities to set different trust
>> levels on other identities.
> 
> Yes, it's essential, otherwise it will be possible to identify that two local 
> identities are the same because they publish identical trust lists. Of 
> course, they'd have to be announced separately to maintain the illusion of 
> separation, and then the user would have to be careful; ideally there would 
> be two different *reading* clients as well as posting.
>> Possibilities are :
>>
>> 1) One identity publish its trustlist and all local identities share the
>> same trust tree.
>> 2) Every local identity has to handle its own trust list and has its own
>> trust tree. That implies that one identity might see someone while
>> another won't.
>>
>> In my opinion, 1) would fit most uses of the plugin. Except the one
>> where you share your node with a person you totally disagree with (quite
>> unlikely, isn't it ?).
>>
>> The flaw of 2) is that every identity has to set its own trust values
>> for every identities. An option could be to allow the user to set a
>> "parent" identity that the new identity would share it's trust list with.
>>
>> What do you think ?
> 
> I think you should support completely separate identities which can't be 
> easily linked together, just as Frost did.

Thanks to all for your thoughts. Here what I'll do :

Primary identities : You can create as much as you want. Each one has
its own trust tree and can publish (or not) its trustlist.

Secondary identities : They see the trust tree of a chosen parent
(primary) identity and can't publish a trust list.

That way, every use-case is possible and it is impossible to know if an
identity is a secondary identity or a primary that doesn't publish its
trustlist. And identites that publish their trustlist can't be tied
together, because lists will be different...


If you see a problem, talk now or never (tm) NextGen$ ;)

Re: [freenet-dev] WoT plugin : decision

[Matthew Toseland]

On Wednesday 14 May 2008 17:54, Julien Cornuwel wrote:
> Matthew Toseland a écrit :
> > On Monday 12 May 2008 18:14, you wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm having interrogations about the use of the WoT plugin and I'm
> >> confronted to a choice :
> >>
> >> The plugin is able to handle multiple local identites. But do you think
> >> it could be usefull to allow local identities to set different trust
> >> levels on other identities.
> > 
> > Yes, it's essential, otherwise it will be possible to identify that two 
local 
> > identities are the same because they publish identical trust lists. Of 
> > course, they'd have to be announced separately to maintain the illusion of 
> > separation, and then the user would have to be careful; ideally there 
would 
> > be two different *reading* clients as well as posting.
> >> Possibilities are :
> >>
> >> 1) One identity publish its trustlist and all local identities share the
> >> same trust tree.
> >> 2) Every local identity has to handle its own trust list and has its own
> >> trust tree. That implies that one identity might see someone while
> >> another won't.
> >>
> >> In my opinion, 1) would fit most uses of the plugin. Except the one
> >> where you share your node with a person you totally disagree with (quite
> >> unlikely, isn't it ?).
> >>
> >> The flaw of 2) is that every identity has to set its own trust values
> >> for every identities. An option could be to allow the user to set a
> >> "parent" identity that the new identity would share it's trust list with.
> >>
> >> What do you think ?
> > 
> > I think you should support completely separate identities which can't be 
> > easily linked together, just as Frost did.
> 
> Thanks to all for your thoughts. Here what I'll do :
> 
> Primary identities : You can create as much as you want. Each one has
> its own trust tree and can publish (or not) its trustlist.
> 
> Secondary identities : They see the trust tree of a chosen parent
> (primary) identity and can't publish a trust list.
> 
> That way, every use-case is possible and it is impossible to know if an
> identity is a secondary identity or a primary that doesn't publish its
> trustlist. And identites that publish their trustlist can't be tied
> together, because lists will be different...
> 
> 
> If you see a problem, talk now or never (tm) NextGen$ ;)

That sounds nice and flexible.


pgpXnzXyd4384.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] WoT plugin : decision

[Julien Cornuwel]

Matthew Toseland a écrit :
> On Monday 12 May 2008 18:14, you wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm having interrogations about the use of the WoT plugin and I'm
>> confronted to a choice :
>>
>> The plugin is able to handle multiple local identites. But do you think
>> it could be usefull to allow local identities to set different trust
>> levels on other identities.
> 
> Yes, it's essential, otherwise it will be possible to identify that two local 
> identities are the same because they publish identical trust lists. Of 
> course, they'd have to be announced separately to maintain the illusion of 
> separation, and then the user would have to be careful; ideally there would 
> be two different *reading* clients as well as posting.
>> Possibilities are :
>>
>> 1) One identity publish its trustlist and all local identities share the
>> same trust tree.
>> 2) Every local identity has to handle its own trust list and has its own
>> trust tree. That implies that one identity might see someone while
>> another won't.
>>
>> In my opinion, 1) would fit most uses of the plugin. Except the one
>> where you share your node with a person you totally disagree with (quite
>> unlikely, isn't it ?).
>>
>> The flaw of 2) is that every identity has to set its own trust values
>> for every identities. An option could be to allow the user to set a
>> "parent" identity that the new identity would share it's trust list with.
>>
>> What do you think ?
> 
> I think you should support completely separate identities which can't be 
> easily linked together, just as Frost did.

Thanks to all for your thoughts. Here what I'll do :

Primary identities : You can create as much as you want. Each one has
its own trust tree and can publish (or not) its trustlist.

Secondary identities : They see the trust tree of a chosen parent
(primary) identity and can't publish a trust list.

That way, every use-case is possible and it is impossible to know if an
identity is a secondary identity or a primary that doesn't publish its
trustlist. And identites that publish their trustlist can't be tied
together, because lists will be different...


If you see a problem, talk now or never (tm) NextGen$ ;)
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

[freenet-dev] WoT plugin

[Matthew Toseland]

On Monday 12 May 2008 20:05, Julien Cornuwel wrote:
> bbackde at googlemail.com a ?crit :
> > When you publish a shared trust tree with 2 identities, everyone could
> > easily figure
> > out that this two identities are the same person.
> 
> I wasn't thinking about sharing the same trustlist but : the first
> identity publish its trustlist and others don't. What would be shared
> would be the trust *tree*, ie. what identities are viewed and what are not.

That might work, although it's bad if all secondary identities don't publish 
trust lists and most primaries do...
> 
> > I think option 2 together should be implemented, added with the 
possibility to
> > take over (selected) trust states from other local identities.
> 
> 
> Well, that's possible and it's not really complex to implement. But that
> will be more complex to use for the clients. Having an identity that
> sees someone posts while another don't can be quite disapointing.

That could be a pain yes. It's another reason for a user to have a completely 
separate UI for his or her second identity... and preferably a second 
personality too! :)
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 

[freenet-dev] WoT plugin

[Matthew Toseland]

On Monday 12 May 2008 18:14, you wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm having interrogations about the use of the WoT plugin and I'm
> confronted to a choice :
> 
> The plugin is able to handle multiple local identites. But do you think
> it could be usefull to allow local identities to set different trust
> levels on other identities.

Yes, it's essential, otherwise it will be possible to identify that two local 
identities are the same because they publish identical trust lists. Of 
course, they'd have to be announced separately to maintain the illusion of 
separation, and then the user would have to be careful; ideally there would 
be two different *reading* clients as well as posting.
> 
> Possibilities are :
> 
> 1) One identity publish its trustlist and all local identities share the
> same trust tree.
> 2) Every local identity has to handle its own trust list and has its own
> trust tree. That implies that one identity might see someone while
> another won't.
> 
> In my opinion, 1) would fit most uses of the plugin. Except the one
> where you share your node with a person you totally disagree with (quite
> unlikely, isn't it ?).
> 
> The flaw of 2) is that every identity has to set its own trust values
> for every identities. An option could be to allow the user to set a
> "parent" identity that the new identity would share it's trust list with.
> 
> What do you think ?

I think you should support completely separate identities which can't be 
easily linked together, just as Frost did.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 

Re: [freenet-dev] WoT plugin

[Matthew Toseland]

On Monday 12 May 2008 20:05, Julien Cornuwel wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> > When you publish a shared trust tree with 2 identities, everyone could
> > easily figure
> > out that this two identities are the same person.
> 
> I wasn't thinking about sharing the same trustlist but : the first
> identity publish its trustlist and others don't. What would be shared
> would be the trust *tree*, ie. what identities are viewed and what are not.

That might work, although it's bad if all secondary identities don't publish 
trust lists and most primaries do...
> 
> > I think option 2 together should be implemented, added with the 
possibility to
> > take over (selected) trust states from other local identities.
> 
> 
> Well, that's possible and it's not really complex to implement. But that
> will be more complex to use for the clients. Having an identity that
> sees someone posts while another don't can be quite disapointing.

That could be a pain yes. It's another reason for a user to have a completely 
separate UI for his or her second identity... and preferably a second 
personality too! :)


pgpwDNvYfFoCq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] WoT plugin

[Matthew Toseland]

On Monday 12 May 2008 18:14, you wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm having interrogations about the use of the WoT plugin and I'm
> confronted to a choice :
> 
> The plugin is able to handle multiple local identites. But do you think
> it could be usefull to allow local identities to set different trust
> levels on other identities.

Yes, it's essential, otherwise it will be possible to identify that two local 
identities are the same because they publish identical trust lists. Of 
course, they'd have to be announced separately to maintain the illusion of 
separation, and then the user would have to be careful; ideally there would 
be two different *reading* clients as well as posting.
> 
> Possibilities are :
> 
> 1) One identity publish its trustlist and all local identities share the
> same trust tree.
> 2) Every local identity has to handle its own trust list and has its own
> trust tree. That implies that one identity might see someone while
> another won't.
> 
> In my opinion, 1) would fit most uses of the plugin. Except the one
> where you share your node with a person you totally disagree with (quite
> unlikely, isn't it ?).
> 
> The flaw of 2) is that every identity has to set its own trust values
> for every identities. An option could be to allow the user to set a
> "parent" identity that the new identity would share it's trust list with.
> 
> What do you think ?

I think you should support completely separate identities which can't be 
easily linked together, just as Frost did.


pgpIefh6ryDqK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

[freenet-dev] WoT plugin

[Florent Daignière]

* Julien Cornuwel  [2008-05-12 19:14:06]:

> Hi,
> 
> I'm having interrogations about the use of the WoT plugin and I'm
> confronted to a choice :
> 
> The plugin is able to handle multiple local identites. But do you think
> it could be usefull to allow local identities to set different trust
> levels on other identities.
> 
> Possibilities are :
> 
> 1) One identity publish its trustlist and all local identities share the
> same trust tree.
> 2) Every local identity has to handle its own trust list and has its own
> trust tree. That implies that one identity might see someone while
> another won't.
> 
> In my opinion, 1) would fit most uses of the plugin. Except the one
> where you share your node with a person you totally disagree with (quite
> unlikely, isn't it ?).
> 
> The flaw of 2) is that every identity has to set its own trust values
> for every identities. An option could be to allow the user to set a
> "parent" identity that the new identity would share it's trust list with.
> 
> 
> What do you think ?

Go for the second option
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: 

[freenet-dev] WoT plugin

[Julien Cornuwel]

bbackde at googlemail.com a ?crit :
> When you publish a shared trust tree with 2 identities, everyone could
> easily figure
> out that this two identities are the same person.

I wasn't thinking about sharing the same trustlist but : the first
identity publish its trustlist and others don't. What would be shared
would be the trust *tree*, ie. what identities are viewed and what are not.

> I think option 2 together should be implemented, added with the possibility to
> take over (selected) trust states from other local identities.


Well, that's possible and it's not really complex to implement. But that
will be more complex to use for the clients. Having an identity that
sees someone posts while another don't can be quite disapointing.

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: 

[freenet-dev] WoT plugin

[bbac...@googlemail.com]

When you publish a shared trust tree with 2 identities, everyone could
easily figure
out that this two identities are the same person.

I think option 2 together should be implemented, added with the possibility to
take over (selected) trust states from other local identities.

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Julien Cornuwel  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm having interrogations about the use of the WoT plugin and I'm
> confronted to a choice :
>
> The plugin is able to handle multiple local identites. But do you think
> it could be usefull to allow local identities to set different trust
> levels on other identities.
>
> Possibilities are :
>
> 1) One identity publish its trustlist and all local identities share the
> same trust tree.
> 2) Every local identity has to handle its own trust list and has its own
> trust tree. That implies that one identity might see someone while
> another won't.
>
> In my opinion, 1) would fit most uses of the plugin. Except the one
> where you share your node with a person you totally disagree with (quite
> unlikely, isn't it ?).
>
> The flaw of 2) is that every identity has to set its own trust values
> for every identities. An option could be to allow the user to set a
> "parent" identity that the new identity would share it's trust list with.
>
>
> What do you think ?
>
>
> ___
> Devl mailing list
> Devl at freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
>



-- 
__
GnuPG key: (0x48DBFA8A)
Keyserver: pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de
Fingerprint:
477D F057 1BD4 1AE7 8A54 8679 6690 E2EC 48DB FA8A
__

Re: [freenet-dev] WoT plugin

[Florent Daignière]

* Julien Cornuwel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-12 19:14:06]:

> Hi,
> 
> I'm having interrogations about the use of the WoT plugin and I'm
> confronted to a choice :
> 
> The plugin is able to handle multiple local identites. But do you think
> it could be usefull to allow local identities to set different trust
> levels on other identities.
> 
> Possibilities are :
> 
> 1) One identity publish its trustlist and all local identities share the
> same trust tree.
> 2) Every local identity has to handle its own trust list and has its own
> trust tree. That implies that one identity might see someone while
> another won't.
> 
> In my opinion, 1) would fit most uses of the plugin. Except the one
> where you share your node with a person you totally disagree with (quite
> unlikely, isn't it ?).
> 
> The flaw of 2) is that every identity has to set its own trust values
> for every identities. An option could be to allow the user to set a
> "parent" identity that the new identity would share it's trust list with.
> 
> 
> What do you think ?

Go for the second option


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

[freenet-dev] WoT plugin

[Julien Cornuwel]

Hi,

I'm having interrogations about the use of the WoT plugin and I'm
confronted to a choice :

The plugin is able to handle multiple local identites. But do you think
it could be usefull to allow local identities to set different trust
levels on other identities.

Possibilities are :

1) One identity publish its trustlist and all local identities share the
same trust tree.
2) Every local identity has to handle its own trust list and has its own
trust tree. That implies that one identity might see someone while
another won't.

In my opinion, 1) would fit most uses of the plugin. Except the one
where you share your node with a person you totally disagree with (quite
unlikely, isn't it ?).

The flaw of 2) is that every identity has to set its own trust values
for every identities. An option could be to allow the user to set a
"parent" identity that the new identity would share it's trust list with.


What do you think ?

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: 

Re: [freenet-dev] WoT plugin

[Julien Cornuwel]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> When you publish a shared trust tree with 2 identities, everyone could
> easily figure
> out that this two identities are the same person.

I wasn't thinking about sharing the same trustlist but : the first
identity publish its trustlist and others don't. What would be shared
would be the trust *tree*, ie. what identities are viewed and what are not.

> I think option 2 together should be implemented, added with the possibility to
> take over (selected) trust states from other local identities.


Well, that's possible and it's not really complex to implement. But that
will be more complex to use for the clients. Having an identity that
sees someone posts while another don't can be quite disapointing.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] WoT plugin

[bbackde]

When you publish a shared trust tree with 2 identities, everyone could
easily figure
out that this two identities are the same person.

I think option 2 together should be implemented, added with the possibility to
take over (selected) trust states from other local identities.

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Julien Cornuwel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm having interrogations about the use of the WoT plugin and I'm
> confronted to a choice :
>
> The plugin is able to handle multiple local identites. But do you think
> it could be usefull to allow local identities to set different trust
> levels on other identities.
>
> Possibilities are :
>
> 1) One identity publish its trustlist and all local identities share the
> same trust tree.
> 2) Every local identity has to handle its own trust list and has its own
> trust tree. That implies that one identity might see someone while
> another won't.
>
> In my opinion, 1) would fit most uses of the plugin. Except the one
> where you share your node with a person you totally disagree with (quite
> unlikely, isn't it ?).
>
> The flaw of 2) is that every identity has to set its own trust values
> for every identities. An option could be to allow the user to set a
> "parent" identity that the new identity would share it's trust list with.
>
>
> What do you think ?
>
>
> ___
> Devl mailing list
> Devl@freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
>



-- 
__
GnuPG key: (0x48DBFA8A)
Keyserver: pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de
Fingerprint:
477D F057 1BD4 1AE7 8A54 8679 6690 E2EC 48DB FA8A
__
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

[freenet-dev] WoT plugin

[Julien Cornuwel]

Hi,

I'm having interrogations about the use of the WoT plugin and I'm
confronted to a choice :

The plugin is able to handle multiple local identites. But do you think
it could be usefull to allow local identities to set different trust
levels on other identities.

Possibilities are :

1) One identity publish its trustlist and all local identities share the
same trust tree.
2) Every local identity has to handle its own trust list and has its own
trust tree. That implies that one identity might see someone while
another won't.

In my opinion, 1) would fit most uses of the plugin. Except the one
where you share your node with a person you totally disagree with (quite
unlikely, isn't it ?).

The flaw of 2) is that every identity has to set its own trust values
for every identities. An option could be to allow the user to set a
"parent" identity that the new identity would share it's trust list with.


What do you think ?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

[freenet-dev] WoT plugin specifications (draft)

[Julien Cornuwel]

Hi,

I finally manage to write a few lines about the operation of the WoT plugin.
As the title says, this is still a draft, with a lot of information
missing. But it is a beginning, answering most questions I recieved
about it last weeks.

USK at 
MF2Vc6FRgeFMZJ0s2l9hOop87EYWAydUZakJzL0OfV8,fQeN-RMQZsUrDha2LCJWOMFk1-EiXZxfTnBT8NEgY00,AQACAAE/wotplugin/0/

I'm planning to update this freesite quite often during the next days.
People who are interrested should bookmark it.

Regards,

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: 

[freenet-dev] WoT plugin specifications (draft)

[Julien Cornuwel]

Hi,

I finally manage to write a few lines about the operation of the WoT plugin.
As the title says, this is still a draft, with a lot of information
missing. But it is a beginning, answering most questions I recieved
about it last weeks.

[EMAIL 
PROTECTED],fQeN-RMQZsUrDha2LCJWOMFk1-EiXZxfTnBT8NEgY00,AQACAAE/wotplugin/0/

I'm planning to update this freesite quite often during the next days.
People who are interrested should bookmark it.

Regards,



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl