On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 11:52:20AM -0700, Josh Steiner wrote:
> I was under the impression that a goal of freenet was plausable
> deniability of the content in your own store. if it stores all
> information that comes to your node, couldnt a legal argument be made
> against an "end user" node th
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 11:52:20 -0700 (PDT)
Josh Steiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was under the impression that a goal of freenet was plausable
> deniability of the content in your own store. if it stores all
> information that comes to your node, couldnt a legal argument be made
> against an
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 10:01:05AM +0100, Christopher William Turner wrote:
> I'd like to see all nodes store *everything* *everytime* that they find data
> in a new short-term datastore.
That is what the current one does.
> The existing datastore can hold long term
> specialised information
I'd like to see all nodes store *everything* *everytime* that they find data
in a new short-term datastore. The existing datastore can hold long term
specialised information as now.
The short term store does not apply to insertion requests. The short-term
store can use the current store imple
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 06:09:30PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 01:14:58AM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> > Probabilistic selective caching should simply be based on the number of
> > steps since the data was found / source was reset. This avoids all this
> > silly abritrary
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 10:43:36PM -0400, Michael Wiktowy wrote:
> Why do you think that it is important to have multiple specialties
> in a small (or immature) network? I ask to seek a better understanding
> of network development for myself. I personally think that the network
> could be succes
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 01:14:58AM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> Probabilistic selective caching should simply be based on the number of
> steps since the data was found / source was reset. This avoids all this
> silly abritrary behavior yet achieves much the same effect.
Agreed. Didn't you do
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 05:49:26PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
< >
> H. If we're going to do selective caching (which we haven't yet
> done, and which is pointless until we fix the datastore bugs), we
> probably should involve the success probability of the key in the
> calculation; this i
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 10:52:55AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 05:49:26PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > H. If we're going to do selective caching (which we haven't yet
> > done, and which is pointless until we fix the datastore bugs), we
> > probably should involve
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 05:49:26PM +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> H. If we're going to do selective caching (which we haven't yet
> done, and which is pointless until we fix the datastore bugs), we
> probably should involve the success probability of the key in the
> calculation; this is the
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 09:36:43AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > I was just wondering if Ian and others feel that multi-area
> > specialization is a requirement for Freenet to work (i.e. stems
> > from a conscious design decision) or just something that is a
> > consequence of the current Freenet i
> I was just wondering if Ian and others feel that multi-area
> specialization is a requirement for Freenet to work (i.e. stems
> from a conscious design decision) or just something that is a
> consequence of the current Freenet implementation.
I wouldn't say it is necessarily a requirement, howe
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:37:29 -0700
"Scott G. Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 09:05:38PM -0400, Michael Wiktowy wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I was just wondering if Ian and others feel that multi-area
> > specialization is a requirement for Freenet to work (i.e. stem
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 09:05:38PM -0400, Michael Wiktowy wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I was just wondering if Ian and others feel that multi-area
> specialization is a requirement for Freenet to work (i.e. stems
> from a conscious design decision) or just something that is a
> consequence of the curr
Greetings,
I was just wondering if Ian and others feel that multi-area
specialization is a requirement for Freenet to work (i.e. stems
from a conscious design decision) or just something that is a
consequence of the current Freenet implementation.
It seems to me that Freenet could be designed to
15 matches
Mail list logo
