-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:53:38 +0200, you wrote:
>
> Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I assume that the inserting node gets more blame than the surrounding
> > > nodes and that blame does not stick around forever. Maybe for a ver
You're ignoring the readers. And the testers.
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 11:50:40AM -0400, Ken Snider wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >Which is *definitionally* bad. Even though the lack of censorship means
> >the people who would most benefit from Freenet can't use it, only the
> >people who don'
Matthew Toseland wrote:
Which is *definitionally* bad. Even though the lack of censorship means
the people who would most benefit from Freenet can't use it, only the
people who don't care (because they're entirely amoral), or think the
benefit outweighs the cost (because they're hardline libertar
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 04:00:25PM +0200, Rainer Kupke wrote:
> Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > How long would it take for the community to identify the outer layer of
> > > "evilnet"?
> > > Even a single person should be able to protect the "inserter" with 4-6
> > > layers of
Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How long would it take for the community to identify the outer layer of
> > "evilnet"?
> > Even a single person should be able to protect the "inserter" with 4-6
> > layers of "blame absorbers".
>
> It would be obvious that every single evil insert
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 02:53:38PM +0200, Rainer Kupke wrote:
> Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I assume that the inserting node gets more blame than the surrounding
> > > nodes and that blame does not stick around forever. Maybe for a very
> > > long time, but definitely not f
Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I assume that the inserting node gets more blame than the surrounding
> > nodes and that blame does not stick around forever. Maybe for a very
> > long time, but definitely not forever.
> >
> > So I can surround my "inserter" with one (as above) or
Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 11:52:00AM +0200, Rainer Kupke wrote:
> > Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > [voting against nodes that insert objectionable content]
> >
> > After a night of sleep I came up with two strategies to defeat your
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 01:41:37PM +0200, Rainer Kupke wrote:
> Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 11:52:00AM +0200, Rainer Kupke wrote:
> > > Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > [voting against nodes that insert objectionable content]
> > >
What a terrible idea. Censorship by majority is still censorship.
Ian.
On 11 Jul 2005, at 16:17, Matthew Toseland wrote:
Here's a really whacky idea I came up with on the train back from
Strasbourg (please read the whole email before flaming me):
Personally I support Freenet being uncensorab
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 11:08:25AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
> What a terrible idea. Censorship by majority is still censorship.
Personally I've always taken the view that censorship is not evil in and
of itself, but that the powerful must not be allowed to wield it to
suppress criticism of themse
Which is *definitionally* bad. Even though the lack of censorship means
the people who would most benefit from Freenet can't use it, only the
people who don't care (because they're entirely amoral), or think the
benefit outweighs the cost (because they're hardline libertarians like
us).
On Wed, Ju
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 11:52:00AM +0200, Rainer Kupke wrote:
> Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [voting against nodes that insert objectionable content]
>
> After a night of sleep I came up with two strategies to defeat your
> idea:
>
> First strategy:
> 1. run several small node
I'm not sure that what you suggest is possible or helpful... It is
inevitable that content's popularity will vary from time to time... And
with per node failure tables it should be possible to find it on the
occasional somewhat-off-specialization node with a big store given
enough requests...
On T
Well, sometimes it's legitimate to reinsert data...
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 04:06:08PM +0200, Rainer Kupke wrote:
> Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > When a node drops data have it remember the hash for a *long* time. If
> > > somebody tries to reinsert the data just act as if t
Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > When a node drops data have it remember the hash for a *long* time. If
> > somebody tries to reinsert the data just act as if the insertion was
> > successfull and ignore it.
>
> What if they just insert it locally on their own node and then propaga
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 01:03:08PM +0200, Rainer Kupke wrote:
> Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There is an argument that unpopular content will fall out of the current
> > Freenet; it won't if the original insertor keeps on pushing it back in.
>
> What if you simply make it mor
Here's a really whacky idea I came up with on the train back from
Strasbourg (please read the whole email before flaming me):
Personally I support Freenet being uncensorable and providing
untraceability for posters, because there is no way to prevent
censorship abuses by the powerful (including go
18 matches
Mail list logo
