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
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 10:22:31AM -0400, Colin Davis wrote:
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
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 05:50:34PM +0100, Roger Hayter wrote:
FWIW, I agree with all your points. And I would add that no-one is more
than 2 steps away from a police spy - I find random connection *adds*
plausible deniability: although not (and this is a valid point that has
been made by
On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 06:15:04PM -0400, Colin Davis wrote:
If/when we do opennet people will use that instead till it gets
blocked(it will happen eventually), then we're back to trying to get
the darknet working for everyone again. If most people will use the
opennet till it's impossible
in its current state
Sure- I can only look at the present. I'm usre that hte project has plans
for fixing things, but I'm just trying to express the way I see it.
What exactly were his reasons?
I talked to two physical friends of mine- I tried to outline their answers
below- One said that he
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 10:34:41AM -0400, Colin Davis wrote:
1) Users tend to prefer Speed to Anonymity-
Then they can use bittorrent. For the most popular files, bittorrent
will always be faster than Freenet. For medium popularit files it is
possible that they will be findable, and
I accept your point that routing load is more importaint that performance.
I'm arguing that the argument that intentionally under utilizing certain
certain nodes (for instance, not assigning a larger area of keyspace to
more powerful nodes), isn't necessarily the best choice.
I conceed about
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 04:06:50PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in its current state
Sure- I can only look at the present. I'm usre that hte project has plans
for fixing things, but I'm just trying to express the way I see it.
What exactly were his reasons?
I talked to two
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matthew
Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 05:50:34PM +0100, Roger Hayter wrote:
FWIW, I agree with all your points. And I would add that no-one is more
than 2 steps away from a police spy - I find random connection *adds*
plausible
That's the idea. Like I said, we'll probably have opennet eventually.Then we agree ;)I don't think that freenet can do an opennet until the darkenet works properly. My concern is that the darknet will never work properly, however.They can, although they are already blown. Anyway the point is that
Another Ruby freenet utility. At the moment it's a simple queued
downloader, but it's quite simple. I'm planning to extend it to
provide upload support and global queue management things.
System requirements: Ruby 1.8. I haven't tested it on Windows, but it
should work.
It's part of the
11 matches
Mail list logo
