Matthew Toseland wrote: > (snip of already discussed stuff)
>>In practice you will have a big opennet unsuitable for >>your test purposes and some small darknets, maybe unknown to you, and >>probably so small to be of no value to your intention of testing the >>global scalable darknet. Aren't WASTE networks already useful for these >>people? They don't scale but they serve for reduced groups with very >>specific interests. > > > Why do you think it would not scale? It CAN scale. It is possible for it > to route on a very large network. And my friends and my friend's friends > are two different sets of people. Especially in the initial situation in > the West, where there is no persecution and therefore no need to require > them to be Ultimately Trustworthy. Just because WASTE doesn't scale does > NOT mean Freenet can't scale. I was specifically refering to WASTE, not freenet. What I was saying is that for small darknets there's already WASTE. >>Maybe I've missed something in the discussion, so, will be there some >>forced incompatibility in the nodes to prevent adding trusted and >>untrusted links? > > Don't tempt me. :) > >>The only outcome I can foresee is that one of the two networks will >>prevail. Why? Either because the darknet routing works and the opennet >>don't, either because it works in the opennet and all the content is >>there. Once that happens, the network will be no longer a pure darknet >>in any case. > > And then they destroy the opennet. And we're stuffed. > >>So, if I've understood you right (and please correct me if not), your >>main concern is to have a big darknet with the right topology. > > Yes. I frankly have a hard time figuring how this can be achieved. When 0.7 is out I guess you and Ian will be the only persons I could ask for their references, and how would you trust me? What if I have a single trusted reference, and he's not 24/7 online? >>What do you think about this: use some sophisticated management of >>links. You have two categories: trusted and untrusted. You may transfer >>your links between these, and activate these independently. >> >>The network can get a quick start with people using untrusted links. >>When the network has a reasonable size, it may be easy for people to >>find trusted friends. At that point, you make their links trusted and >>deactivate the untrusted ones. Or you reduce the number of them until >>you need these no more. So the network will progressively mutate into >>darknet form. Feasible? > > How do you find these links? Central introduction servers? Path folding? > Either way the information is still out there, and the nodes can still > be harvested. I'm struggling about how we could do this. I'll come back later with any ideas. > It may be necessary to have some limited, local link mobility; this has > been discussed before but as usual everyone was asleep. But it must not > be possible for links to migrate right across the network, because that > will allow harvesting.
