-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Matthew Toseland wrote: > We can grant a darknet node > more tokens than an opennet node; we can increase the maximum > bucket/queue size, we can increase the likelihood of allocating tokens > to a darknet node, or even not fill the darknet buckets at all until > the opennet ones are full.
Increasing the probability sounds better than increasing the bucket size - - the bucket size is only meant to determine how large a burst of requests we can accommodate. Even if we don't end up mixing darknet and opennet, it would be useful to be able to give different priorities to different peers. > If anyone has a better > non-gimmick idea for encouraging people to use the darknet even if they > have opennet connections already, please give me it. I disagree with Ian's characterisation of useful applications as gimmicks. There are some applications (eg instant messaging, chatrooms, blogs, voip, shared folders/workspaces) that match the darknet model very well. A darknet that supports these applications will provide significantly better privacy for users of these applications than the current centralised solutions. This is not about using gimmicks to trick people into using Freenet: it's about giving people more secure, private versions of the applications they already use. I'm not suggesting that Freenet should *only* support single-hop communication - I'm all in favour of building a general-purpose anonymous communication network, and I understand the arguments for keeping it as general-purpose as possible - but in my opinion we need the darknet model for security, and the darknet model happens to be a good match for a pretty broad and popular class of applications, so why not allow the users to benefit from that? Cheers, Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEs12Pyua14OQlJ3sRAm0oAKCiC+FGEl2+HRb5sMqiEPJqUh+uTwCfcxeR hy7El/2yvXcr9J4zwcNzopM= =EoNl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
