i belive an hybrid of darknet/opennet would be better.

If you write in the code/make an setting per client,
that you can choose to be an opennet node (anyone can connect to you)
or still stay as a darknet node (trade refs as now).

Althought making the darknet users connect to the opennet parts would 
probably be
harder but in the end it would probably be better then having 2 
separated networks.

Scruple Scruple wrote:
> Scruple:
> >>Open-net is more anonymous, as was said above, because it increases 
> >>the anonymity set. If Freenet is ever to amount to anything then it will 
> >>have to be used - that is the goal isn't it, for Freenet to actually be 
> >>used? If it is to be used then it will need to be easy (easier) to use.
>
> Toad:
> >Freenet needs to have more nodes yes, this I accept, and it's the main
> >reason why we will have to implement opennet.
>
> Open-net doesn't need to be doom and gloom. Open-net despite increasing the 
> anonymity set can also be
> used a client pool of potential 'dark-net friends' that should be as secure 
> as #freenet-refs is now. One could 
> sample the open-net pool of clients for criteria (e.g. fast connections, 
> online consistently etc) and
> ask to exchange references. In this way open-net would help dark-net grow, 
> and serve as an entry point
> for people into
>  the Freenet darknet.
>
> Eventually Open-net would become less and less needed, but is quite useful 
> for bootstrapping Freenet until/if
> Freenet becomes large.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tech mailing list
> Tech at freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20060814/5ece6821/attachment.html>

Reply via email to