On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 07:13:36AM +0200, David 'Bombe' Roden wrote:
> On Friday 30 June 2006 22:48, Volodya wrote:
>
> > Thinking of it logically FileZilla client/server is more illegal then
> > Freenet.
>
> Yeah, and Apache, and PureFTPd, and netcat, and IRC clients, messengers,
> TCP/IP stack
At a university I used to attend there was a real demand for a
filesharing and chat program to operate between students in the dorms.
They have been using Direct Connect for years, but it's really a poor
solution. Someone has to be running and administrating a hub, users have
to hassle with acc
On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 07:13:36AM +0200, David 'Bombe' Roden wrote:
> On Friday 30 June 2006 22:48, Volodya wrote:
>
> > Thinking of it logically FileZilla client/server is more illegal then
> > Freenet.
>
> Yeah, and Apache, and PureFTPd, and netcat, and IRC clients, messengers,
> TCP/IP stack
At a university I used to attend there was a real demand for a
filesharing and chat program to operate between students in the dorms.
They have been using Direct Connect for years, but it's really a poor
solution. Someone has to be running and administrating a hub, users have
to hassle with acc
On Friday 30 June 2006 22:48, Volodya wrote:
> Thinking of it logically FileZilla client/server is more illegal then
> Freenet.
Yeah, and Apache, and PureFTPd, and netcat, and IRC clients, messengers,
TCP/IP stacks (!)... the list goes on and on. That's just plain stupid.
David
On Friday 30 June 2006 22:48, Volodya wrote:
> Thinking of it logically FileZilla client/server is more illegal then
> Freenet.
Yeah, and Apache, and PureFTPd, and netcat, and IRC clients, messengers,
TCP/IP stacks (!)... the list goes on and on. That's just plain stupid.
David
pgp1kE
Right, so it lets us expose all the work we have to do anyway on NAT
evasion and dyndns to the user. Good.
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 06:47:26PM -0400, Colin Davis wrote:
> Another user-case-
>
> I run Freenet on both my laptop, and my Home machine. My home machine
> is double-natted, on a VERY dy
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 06:40:04PM -0400, Colin Davis wrote:
> IIRC, most local LAN use a very broad subnet architecure. If they are
> normally on 192.168.1.X, 192.168.135.X should catch it too ;)
>
> Also-
>
> OpenVPN runs entirely in user space and does not require any special
> kernel comp
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 06:38:27PM -0400, Colin Davis wrote:
> >
> >Sorry, but I don't see the point with this at all. If you have
> >there IP
> >addresses, you can already connect to them (modulo firewall issues,
> >which will likely be a problem for Freenet as well).
> >
> >It is a helpful hack
Colin Davis wrote:
> What would make Freenet a Killer App, and encourage a LOT of
> installations, and encourage people to make peers is including
> Hamachi-style functionality. http://www.hamachi.cc/
>
> Essentially, since we already have a connection to them, let us forward
> OTHER types of tra
> And 99.999% of users will take the pure-opennet route, unfortunately.
>
> It is entirely legitimate to debate what advantages darknet has, and
> even to create advantages artificially in order to encourage users to
> behave in a sensible fashion. We already have code which restricts what
> users
Well, how do we do this on Windows?
I have some idea how we'd do it on Linux - the VPN driver, or the
user-space networking driver, provides a module you can load to provide
a fake network interface from userspace. But what on earth would we do
on Windows?
I do think this is a good idea if we can
> Even if DADVSI is passed, the case of Freenet remains debatable. In fact,
> DADVSI says that it's forbidden to develop networks being explicitly designed
> for illegal file sharing. As you can guess, this is stupid: How judges will
> define if a network is designed for that or not ? It's even
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 09:21:13PM +0100, Michael Rogers wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > Or a very restricted function where only the designated server can
> > invite people to the chat, and then only if they are directly connected.
>
> Thi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Or a very restricted function where only the designated server can
> invite people to the chat, and then only if they are directly connected.
This is what I had in mind.
Cheers,
Michael
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version:
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 10:07:06PM +0200, Jerome Flesch wrote:
> > And 99.999% of users will take the pure-opennet route, unfortunately.
> >
> > It is entirely legitimate to debate what advantages darknet has, and
> > even to create advantages artificially in order to encourage users to
> > behave
Actually ...
Is it such a bad thing to lose the connection to people behind somebody
when we lose the connection to him? This is exactly what we want to do
when there is spam going on - a web of trust. If the web is very
straggly, then it won't be very stable.
Alice is connected to Bob and Charli
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 08:33:52PM +0100, Michael Rogers wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
>
> >> * Hosting chatrooms for selected peers
> >
> > What exactly are we talking about here?
>
> I wasn't thinking about channels spanning multiple node
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> I.e. take the N2NTM and interface it to Jabber.
> https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=208
Sounds good.
>> * Hosting chatrooms for selected peers
>
> What exactly are we talking about here?
I wasn't thinking about c
In other words, what we have to do to build a large darknet is provide
IM and filesharing functionality, as Michael Rogers said. Local sharing
of indexes and possibly of whole files, local sharing of bookmarks and
blogs, local chat, etc.
If we provide strong incentives for people to add darknet pe
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 07:47:37PM +0100, Michael Rogers wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > Anyone have any more ideas for darknet value-add?
>
> My wishlist would be:
>
> * Instant messaging with a client interface
I.e. take the N2NTM and i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Anyone have any more ideas for darknet value-add?
My wishlist would be:
* Instant messaging with a client interface
* Hosting chatrooms for selected peers
* Sharing local folders with selected peers
* Blog entries, visible t
Woah, that's a good idea. So what we do is:
On installation, the user is queried as to what services (port numbers)
they want to forward to their trusted peers (peers with trust level over
a certain level).
We then assign the node a permanent IP address in the localhost range
(there are 16 millio
There are OSS apps that do this, it's just that it's difficult to set up
as what you are doing is creating a VPN. That would be extremely
difficult to do over Java.
However, the idea of sharing services out to your darknet peers is
possible, if it is sufficiently useful. Certainly exposing samba
And 99.999% of users will take the pure-opennet route, unfortunately.
It is entirely legitimate to debate what advantages darknet has, and
even to create advantages artificially in order to encourage users to
behave in a sensible fashion. We already have code which restricts what
users can easily
Another user-case-
I run Freenet on both my laptop, and my Home machine. My home machine
is double-natted, on a VERY dynamic IP address- It's on a assigned
192.* address, that's forwarding to a 10.0.* address, that's
forwarding to a Dynamic IP Verizon DSL address.
I run Terminal Services s
IIRC, most local LAN use a very broad subnet architecure. If they are
normally on 192.168.1.X, 192.168.135.X should catch it too ;)
Also-
OpenVPN runs entirely in user space and does not require any special
kernel components other than the TUN/TAP virtual network driver
available for Window
>
> Sorry, but I don't see the point with this at all. If you have
> there IP
> addresses, you can already connect to them (modulo firewall issues,
> which will likely be a problem for Freenet as well).
>
> It is a helpful hack to get around the user hostile features of iTunes
> (a better way of
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 01:47:01PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> Ian Clarke wrote:
> >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >I don't think we necessarily have to prevent location swapping on
> >opennet nodes, the destination sampling approach seems pretty robust,
> >and as the
>
> I'm not entirely sure why this would need to be done outside of
> Java...
> Can't we already bind to an infinate number of IP addresses? If we
> pick
> IPaddress to bind to that aren't taken, such as 172.100.100.* we
> should
> be able to bind to those without an issue.
I agree with the
Right, so it lets us expose all the work we have to do anyway on NAT
evasion and dyndns to the user. Good.
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 06:47:26PM -0400, Colin Davis wrote:
> Another user-case-
>
> I run Freenet on both my laptop, and my Home machine. My home machine
> is double-natted, on a VERY dy
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 06:40:04PM -0400, Colin Davis wrote:
> IIRC, most local LAN use a very broad subnet architecure. If they are
> normally on 192.168.1.X, 192.168.135.X should catch it too ;)
>
> Also-
>
> OpenVPN runs entirely in user space and does not require any special
> kernel comp
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 06:38:27PM -0400, Colin Davis wrote:
> >
> >Sorry, but I don't see the point with this at all. If you have
> >there IP
> >addresses, you can already connect to them (modulo firewall issues,
> >which will likely be a problem for Freenet as well).
> >
> >It is a helpful hack
Another user-case-
I run Freenet on both my laptop, and my Home machine. My home machine
is double-natted, on a VERY dynamic IP address- It's on a assigned
192.* address, that's forwarding to a 10.0.* address, that's
forwarding to a Dynamic IP Verizon DSL address.
I run Terminal Services
IIRC, most local LAN use a very broad subnet architecure. If they are
normally on 192.168.1.X, 192.168.135.X should catch it too ;)
Also-
OpenVPN runs entirely in user space and does not require any special
kernel components other than the TUN/TAP virtual network driver
available for Windo
Sorry, but I don't see the point with this at all. If you have
there IP
addresses, you can already connect to them (modulo firewall issues,
which will likely be a problem for Freenet as well).
It is a helpful hack to get around the user hostile features of iTunes
(a better way of doing which
Colin Davis wrote:
> What would make Freenet a Killer App, and encourage a LOT of
> installations, and encourage people to make peers is including
> Hamachi-style functionality. http://www.hamachi.cc/
>
> Essentially, since we already have a connection to them, let us forward
> OTHER types of tra
There are apps to set upa VPN that are OSS, but there aren't any which
make quick and easy to set up a VPN with your friends.
Yes, going directly to your friends would always be better, but what
this does is let EVERY app on your machine use Freenet's UDP hole-punching.
Bob is behind a NAT, and
Well, how do we do this on Windows?
I have some idea how we'd do it on Linux - the VPN driver, or the
user-space networking driver, provides a module you can load to provide
a fake network interface from userspace. But what on earth would we do
on Windows?
I do think this is a good idea if we can
Even if DADVSI is passed, the case of Freenet remains debatable. In fact,
DADVSI says that it's forbidden to develop networks being explicitly designed
for illegal file sharing. As you can guess, this is stupid: How judges will
define if a network is designed for that or not ? It's even more tru
I think this is a Wonderful line of thinking.
Reward good behavior, rather than punishing bad.
I think responding to Jabber commands would go a long way here- It gives
people a Waste-like IM system, which is a great idea.
I don't think it's a killer-app, though.
What would make Freenet a Killer
I'm not entirely sure why this would need to be done outside of
Java...
Can't we already bind to an infinate number of IP addresses? If we
pick
IPaddress to bind to that aren't taken, such as 172.100.100.* we
should
be able to bind to those without an issue.
I agree with the rest of my p
Ian Clarke wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I don't think we necessarily have to prevent location swapping on
> opennet nodes, the destination sampling approach seems pretty robust,
> and as the network stabilizes, the number of location swaps should
> decrease.
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 09:21:13PM +0100, Michael Rogers wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > Or a very restricted function where only the designated server can
> > invite people to the chat, and then only if they are directly connected.
>
> Thi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Or a very restricted function where only the designated server can
> invite people to the chat, and then only if they are directly connected.
This is what I had in mind.
Cheers,
Michael
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version:
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 10:07:06PM +0200, Jerome Flesch wrote:
> > And 99.999% of users will take the pure-opennet route, unfortunately.
> >
> > It is entirely legitimate to debate what advantages darknet has, and
> > even to create advantages artificially in order to encourage users to
> > behave
> And 99.999% of users will take the pure-opennet route, unfortunately.
>
> It is entirely legitimate to debate what advantages darknet has, and
> even to create advantages artificially in order to encourage users to
> behave in a sensible fashion. We already have code which restricts what
> users
Actually ...
Is it such a bad thing to lose the connection to people behind somebody
when we lose the connection to him? This is exactly what we want to do
when there is spam going on - a web of trust. If the web is very
straggly, then it won't be very stable.
Alice is connected to Bob and Charli
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 08:33:52PM +0100, Michael Rogers wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
>
> >> * Hosting chatrooms for selected peers
> >
> > What exactly are we talking about here?
>
> I wasn't thinking about channels spanning multiple node
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> I.e. take the N2NTM and interface it to Jabber.
> https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=208
Sounds good.
>> * Hosting chatrooms for selected peers
>
> What exactly are we talking about here?
I wasn't thinking about c
In other words, what we have to do to build a large darknet is provide
IM and filesharing functionality, as Michael Rogers said. Local sharing
of indexes and possibly of whole files, local sharing of bookmarks and
blogs, local chat, etc.
If we provide strong incentives for people to add darknet pe
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 07:47:37PM +0100, Michael Rogers wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > Anyone have any more ideas for darknet value-add?
>
> My wishlist would be:
>
> * Instant messaging with a client interface
I.e. take the N2NTM and i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Anyone have any more ideas for darknet value-add?
My wishlist would be:
* Instant messaging with a client interface
* Hosting chatrooms for selected peers
* Sharing local folders with selected peers
* Blog entries, visible t
Woah, that's a good idea. So what we do is:
On installation, the user is queried as to what services (port numbers)
they want to forward to their trusted peers (peers with trust level over
a certain level).
We then assign the node a permanent IP address in the localhost range
(there are 16 millio
There are apps to set upa VPN that are OSS, but there aren't any which
make quick and easy to set up a VPN with your friends.
Yes, going directly to your friends would always be better, but what
this does is let EVERY app on your machine use Freenet's UDP hole-punching.
Bob is behind a NAT, and
There are OSS apps that do this, it's just that it's difficult to set up
as what you are doing is creating a VPN. That would be extremely
difficult to do over Java.
However, the idea of sharing services out to your darknet peers is
possible, if it is sufficiently useful. Certainly exposing samba
I think this is a Wonderful line of thinking.
Reward good behavior, rather than punishing bad.
I think responding to Jabber commands would go a long way here- It gives
people a Waste-like IM system, which is a great idea.
I don't think it's a killer-app, though.
What would make Freenet a Killer
And 99.999% of users will take the pure-opennet route, unfortunately.
It is entirely legitimate to debate what advantages darknet has, and
even to create advantages artificially in order to encourage users to
behave in a sensible fashion. We already have code which restricts what
users can easily
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 01:47:01PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> Ian Clarke wrote:
> >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >I don't think we necessarily have to prevent location swapping on
> >opennet nodes, the destination sampling approach seems pretty robust,
> >and as the
Ian Clarke wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I don't think we necessarily have to prevent location swapping on
opennet nodes, the destination sampling approach seems pretty robust,
and as the network stabilizes, the number of location swaps should
decrease.
I don't thi
I think we will have 3 types of user:
Pure darknet - these people have an incentive to connect to as many
people as they can as it will improve performance
Mixed - These people have less pressure to connect to darknet nodes,
but hopefully the pure darknet people can persuade them
Opennet onl
I think we will have 3 types of user:
Pure darknet - these people have an incentive to connect to as many
people as they can as it will improve performance
Mixed - These people have less pressure to connect to darknet nodes,
but hopefully the pure darknet people can persuade them
Opennet only
> I really wish we could get people to not want opennet, it's just too
> much trouble for a more used but less tough net.
There's very little you can do with what people want. You can try
subvertisement, and
start referring to opennet as "low security network"...
--
Hi! I am a .SIG virus! Copy
I really wish we could get people to not want opennet, it's just too
much trouble for a more used but less tough net.
There's very little you can do with what people want. You can try subvertisement, and
start referring to opennet as "low security network"...
--
Hi! I am a .SIG virus! Copy me
On 6/26/06, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 10:02:16PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> > Matthew wrote:
> > > I have no idea what you are talking about.
> >
> > Nodes that aren't worried about whoom they talk to can use destination
> > sampling (like old Freenet, but with forced s
Matthew wrote:
> I have no idea what you are talking about.
Nodes that aren't worried about whoom they talk to can use destination
sampling (like old Freenet, but with forced specialization). If nodes use
this, it won't matter if they got in with some "matchmaking service".
// oskar
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 10:02:16PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> Matthew wrote:
> > I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> Nodes that aren't worried about whoom they talk to can use destination
> sampling (like old Freenet, but with forced specialization). If nodes use
> this, it won't ma
I have no idea what you are talking about.
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 03:27:23AM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> > Is there a serious problem with node location stability? Oskar's
> > simulations suggest not. Anything which impacts location swapping will
> > need to be simulated, of course.
> >
> > My
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I don't think we necessarily have to prevent location swapping on
opennet nodes, the destination sampling approach seems pretty robust,
and as the network stabilizes, the number of location swaps should
decrease.
But, a simple simulation of th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I don't think we necessarily have to prevent location swapping on
opennet nodes, the destination sampling approach seems pretty robust,
and as the network stabilizes, the number of location swaps should
decrease.
But, a simple simulation of this
On 6/26/06, Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 10:02:16PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> Matthew wrote:
> > I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> Nodes that aren't worried about whoom they talk to can use destination
> sampling (like old Freenet, but with
On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 10:02:16PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> Matthew wrote:
> > I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> Nodes that aren't worried about whoom they talk to can use destination
> sampling (like old Freenet, but with forced specialization). If nodes use
> this, it won't ma
Matthew wrote:
> I have no idea what you are talking about.
Nodes that aren't worried about whoom they talk to can use destination
sampling (like old Freenet, but with forced specialization). If nodes use
this, it won't matter if they got in with some "matchmaking service".
// oskar
___
I have no idea what you are talking about.
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 03:27:23AM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> > Is there a serious problem with node location stability? Oskar's
> > simulations suggest not. Anything which impacts location swapping will
> > need to be simulated, of course.
> >
> > My
> Is there a serious problem with node location stability? Oskar's
> simulations suggest not. Anything which impacts location swapping will
> need to be simulated, of course.
>
> My main concern with treating offline nodes as online for purposes of
> swapping is that swaps cannot involve those offl
> Is there a serious problem with node location stability? Oskar's
> simulations suggest not. Anything which impacts location swapping will
> need to be simulated, of course.
>
> My main concern with treating offline nodes as online for purposes of
> swapping is that swaps cannot involve those offl
On 6/22/06, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> With a node up 7x24 I am currently seeing .35 variation in location
> on a daily basis. I have 8-10 connected peers.
>
> Ed
>
> On Wednesday 21 June 2006 12:01, Ruud Javi wrote:
> > >Is there a serious problem with node location stability? Oskar's
> > >simulation
On 6/22/06, Ed Tomlinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
With a node up 7x24 I am currently seeing .35 variation in location
on a daily basis. I have 8-10 connected peers.
Ed
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 12:01, Ruud Javi wrote:
> >Is there a serious problem with node location stability? Oskar's
> >sim
With a node up 7x24 I am currently seeing .35 variation in location
on a daily basis. I have 8-10 connected peers.
Ed
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 12:01, Ruud Javi wrote:
> >Is there a serious problem with node location stability? Oskar's
> >simulations suggest not. Anything which impacts location
>Well, before we make any such drastic changes we need to sort out the
>caching behaviour; it is probably wrong at the moment.
>
>Is your node on 24x7?
No, not for as long as I am still running Freenet .5
Is that a reason why my node is at totally different locations?
>On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 0
With a node up 7x24 I am currently seeing .35 variation in location
on a daily basis. I have 8-10 connected peers.
Ed
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 12:01, Ruud Javi wrote:
> >Is there a serious problem with node location stability? Oskar's
> >simulations suggest not. Anything which impacts location
>Is there a serious problem with node location stability? Oskar's
>simulations suggest not. Anything which impacts location swapping will
>need to be simulated, of course.
Well... I can only talk for myself, but my own node's location is changing
often to total different values. Yesterday I was a
Well, before we make any such drastic changes we need to sort out the
caching behaviour; it is probably wrong at the moment.
Is your node on 24x7?
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 06:01:54PM +0200, Ruud Javi wrote:
> >Is there a serious problem with node location stability? Oskar's
> >simulations suggest
The following text is describing a way to have a more stable node location,
by treating temporary offline nodes as online nodes.
The location of your node is depending on your neighbors. If your neighbor?s
locations are all around 0.5, then your node will also try to get a location
close to 0
Is there a serious problem with node location stability? Oskar's
simulations suggest not. Anything which impacts location swapping will
need to be simulated, of course.
My main concern with treating offline nodes as online for purposes of
swapping is that swaps cannot involve those offline nodes;
Well, before we make any such drastic changes we need to sort out the
caching behaviour; it is probably wrong at the moment.
Is your node on 24x7?
No, not for as long as I am still running Freenet .5
Is that a reason why my node is at totally different locations?
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 06:
Well, before we make any such drastic changes we need to sort out the
caching behaviour; it is probably wrong at the moment.
Is your node on 24x7?
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 06:01:54PM +0200, Ruud Javi wrote:
> >Is there a serious problem with node location stability? Oskar's
> >simulations suggest
Is there a serious problem with node location stability? Oskar's
simulations suggest not. Anything which impacts location swapping will
need to be simulated, of course.
Well... I can only talk for myself, but my own node's location is changing
often to total different values. Yesterday I was at
Is there a serious problem with node location stability? Oskar's
simulations suggest not. Anything which impacts location swapping will
need to be simulated, of course.
My main concern with treating offline nodes as online for purposes of
swapping is that swaps cannot involve those offline nodes;
The following text is describing a way to have a more stable node location,
by treating temporary offline nodes as online nodes.
The location of your node is depending on your neighbors. If your neighborÂ’s
locations are all around 0.5, then your node will also try to get a location
close to
90 matches
Mail list logo
