-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10 Jul 2006, at 15:04, Matthew Toseland wrote: > Secondly, as I have stated already, I think it would be a MAJOR > strategic mistake to deploy opennet without some significant and well > publicised benefits to getting darknet connections.
There already is, running a "darknet only" node means it is much harder for anyone to tell that you are running Freenet. I really don't think we should waste any time on gimmicks to encourage people to use Freenet in any particular way. > But we need additional incentives or releasing an opennet will simply > result in nobody using the darknet. If the real incentive for using a darknet is insufficient, then so be it. I don't think we should be wasting our time on gimmicks. > Furthermore, we continue to have serious issues with load > balancing, and > we need to deploy a new storage strategy. Deploying opennet at this > point would make a messy situation a lot messier. They are two valid arguments, but the whole "we can't deploy opennet until we have some gimmicks to prevent everyone from using it" argument isn't very persuasive at all. Ian. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin) iD8DBQFEsuWWQtgxRWSmsqwRAu78AJ4xYTVp3nT4nBUTTQ3WP2EVJUldXwCfe1EY 4U6dEMtwQMvaJJeCGJPtxa4= =+Otf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
