On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 11:12:40AM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: > On 20 Sep 2005, at 10:56, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > >Which reduces "globally scalable darknet" to "clusters of dark nodes > >hanging off the opennet". > > Well, if that would truly be the topology then the alternative is > "clusters of isolated dark nodes", which is worse?
There would be no real reason to grow the darknet, that's the point. If the only way to connect (easily) is by growing the darknet, it will grow. > > >The result of which is that it does not tell > >us anything about the viability of the global darknet. And WHEN, > >not if, > >the opennet is compromized, there is no global darknet. Just a few > >disconnected nodes. > > If you truly believe that dark nodes would be in small isolated > pockets, then what makes you believe that a pure-darknet is viable at > all without open nodes to glue it together? I don't believe people would make the effort to grow the darknet if they are connected by open nodes. And furthermore, if they are connected by open nodes, it tells us nothing whatsoever about the viability of a fully dark network. > > Ian. -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/support/attachments/20050920/b1a3929b/attachment.pgp>
