>Hmm.. what I was trying to say was that if they don't know the IP of >the central point it can't be attacked. And the protocol should be >desiged so that they DON'T know the IP. Thus it is not vulnerable >for attack. >And as I said earlier in the PDF I linked to, I have sketched how >this could be achieved.
Someone, eventually, has to know the IP. If that is compromised, your entire network can be shutdown. Being less paranoid, what happens if the machine crashes, or needs to be upgraded? Again, down goes the entire network. >Well.. I don't know the details of how freeNet works. I just read a >paper on it some time ago, and then it struck me that it was not >suited for large data transfers, much like many other protocols I've >seen. So I've started this thread so that people who want to defend >freeNet can tell me why I am wrong, OR that I am NOT wrong. >Besides, YOU seems to agree with me, but apparanlty others don't.. >:P I'm not saying Freenet can't handle large files satisfactorily, just that /isn't what it is designed for/. Therefore, it will make sacrifices that may slow down file transfer, to ensure it's true goal is achieved. Naturally, within those limits, Freenet endeavours to be as fast as possible. >So in what way is freeNet optimised accoring to you? And is it not >wrong to optimise for other things that large data transfer? >Won't users get pissed off if their BW is consumed for no good >reason? I think this debate comes down to how paranoid you are :P You seem to be arguing, effectively, that Freenet could reduce the hoops it jumps through to achieve anonymous transfers and still be secure. Maybe. I'd rather be safe than sorry, however. From what I've seen of your suggested network, there appears rather too many holes for me to feel safe. Naturally, that is a personal decision, however, and no discussion about network design can change the level of security you or I require. >>If you want to transfer large files fast, find an FTP server. > >First of all, I'm not looking for anything on a practical level, >only on a theoretical level. I'm want a protocol with certain >properties. Why? >Because I find this stuff very interesting. I know - I was simply trying to illustrate the point that there are different protocols for /different purposes/. Freenet can never equal any file-sharing client for speed of transfer. p2p is designed to find and transfer files as fast as possible. Freenet is designed to transfer information as anonymously as possible. The only question is, is it fast /enough/ ? For me, yes, for you, apparently, no. >/Gabriel [ cruise / casual-tempest.net / transference.org ] _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
