On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 01:26:44PM +0200, Alex R. Mosteo wrote: > 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.
I'm not interested in the degenerate case of 10 people who all know each other and all connect to each other. I'm interested in scalable darknets. Which are graphs of people, which can be large, where I connect to my friends and my friend connects to his friends. > > >>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? As I have said, strong trust is not required at this stage. Anyone I've ever argued with at length on email or IRC would probably be a candidate. At least as far as getting the topology right goes. > > >>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. -- 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/20050921/8b21da76/attachment.pgp>
