On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 04:45:10PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > > On 10 Jul 2006, at 15:07, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > >I have outlined 3 criteria under which I would be (relatively) > >happy to > >deploy an opennet. Others will disagree with my criteria and my > >evaluation of them, but I put them out for discussion. > >I will repeat them: > > > >1. There must be major benefits to getting darknet connections on a > >currently purely opennet node, and to adding more darknet > >connections to > >an existing hybrid node. > > There already are. If you run a darknet node you get increased > security, if you allow your friends to connect to your node as > darknet connections, then you are helping your friends. As I said, > anything beyond this is nothing more than a gimmick.
As I have said, that is not enough. Can we do more? Can we for example prioritize traffic from darknet peers, without breaking routing? If the only benefit is to allow your exceptionally paranoid friends to use freenet via darknet connections to you, then there will only ever be a very thin layer of darknet on the edges of the opennet. > > >2. It must be easy to add darknet connections. > > This is definitely a priority, but I see no reason for it to be a > precondition. Darknet must survive on its own merits, if it can't, > then so be it - but we shouldn't deny opennet to people just because > we are afraid that people might use it. If it can't, the entire Freenet project has been for nothing - except to distribute a few geek sites, a small number of politically interesting files, a few of which were actively censored on the web, and a lot of child porn. I don't have any interest in working on a network which is only of use to western paedophiles, western libertarians, and western warez dudes, and only for as long as it is legal there. However, you may be right about condition 2; adding darknet connections is not particularly difficult at the present time. I am much more interested in condition 1. > > >3. The network must be relatively stable; we need to sort out load > >balancing and storage before deploying an opennet, or we will end up > >debugging far too many things at once. > > That is a valid point, but I don't want it to become an excuse for > eternal procrastination on opennet. At the very least we need to deploy the new load limiting algorithm and the new storage algorithm. > > Ian. -- 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/tech/attachments/20060711/7b791504/attachment.pgp>
