On Tuesday 13 May 2008 14:36, Dan.Bruce at gmail.com wrote: > Some times it needs a bit of discussion to be able to make idea's come > clear, lol, I am bad for missing a few steps in the thought process and > jumping over them. > > The first is FreeNet allows for a couple ways to be set up. As an OPEN > NET concept and it also allows for establishing a Private Network that > literally does not connect to anyone but a secured group, 10 People can > use it to establish a private Internet of there own and quite literally > ignore the fact there is an internet.
Not true. Lots and lots of people seem to not get the darknet concept. Just because you only connect to your trusted friends, does not mean that your friends only connect to YOUR trusted friends: they will connect to THEIR trusted friends, which may not be the same as yours, although there will be a good deal of overlap. Some of them may connect to the opennet, but even without that, it is possible to have a global darknet. And to have it routable, hopefully, in a reasonably small number of hops (= good performance), with Freenet 0.7. > > The "Add to the Cause" concept in terms of an application that allows a > person to say OK I will give 20k up 20k down towards the cause in this. > It gives the chance to incorporate essentially a TOR style router to the > entire freenet. It would allow use of this to relay traffic through > them, or if the user enables to function as a temporary distributed > MINI Server for the freenet. It would depend on the application. You can just install Freenet if you want to contribute to Freenet. I don't see the problem, except that it's a bit heavier than it ought to be. Is there any other barrier here? > > I suggested CHAT as that is an application that most often is left on > 24/7 on a machine, and as long as the bandwidth use stays with in > reason, does like the SETI application did if the machine was idle it > went to work if it was in use it went to a crawl people will add to the > cause, a pause button for it if its interfering with the operation. Sure, but it's rather heavyweight for a chat client! If people want a chat client they'll just get a chat client, won't they? > > MINI Server: you take 8 of these mini nodes that have the ability to > work as a server for a short time and bundle them as a single server. > The IRC Channel Server or what ever then works off one IP for 15 mins > and then changes to the next this gives the redundancy and obscuring it > with others working as relays to them. Eh? > > The ability to hide in the open is the concept I am working with 20 > darknet networks that function alone are better hidden if there are 2 or > 3 OPEN NET functions working and 20 or 30 Private/Open Net functions > working. > > If you have 80 million people that have 20k in 20k out all with the same > sized blocks of traffic and its all private/encrypted you cant say which > traffic is in which of the numerous networks. > > What gets Bundled with an application for everyone to use does not have > to be a FULL FreeNet it could be a service function that the freenet can > use to increase its performance and its security. The user gets > encrypted SECURE chat Freenet gets a mini service... I don't see any way to divide Freenet up beyond the node level. That means you will need to deploy a full Freenet node. However, most of its local resource consumption (memory, CPU) is related to queued downloads and so on. > > With the Storage Idea I am not thinking of the new stuff to burn on DVD > though it might be feasible to ask users to burn a FREENET SYSTEM DVD/CD > every now and then. What I am thinking of is the thousands and millions > of CD/DVD that people have burned already. That wasn't very clear from your post; in the first part I assumed it was existing disks but in the second it looked like you were talking about disks people had burned especially. > > The offline storage is already burnt and the potential archive goes back > to the early 90's in terms of information archive. > > For the FreeNet to have an application that allows scanning in the files > on the Users CD/DVD into a Database that the user can use to locate > files in the users own library. What is needed is to generate the Hash > ID's for what they have burned and include that in the database ideally > a flag saying that some stuff is not to be included. A copy of a 1991 > abandoned game would see some requests and if the person scans in a disc > that also has wedding pictures obviously they would not be included in > the database except for personal use. Not that anyone would have the ID > Hash to request it. The problem with this is that if it relies on the user coming up with the disk, not only will latency be terrible, but in many cases the user won't be bothered - it's just way too much work to find a specific disk, at least in my house! This makes it difficult to regulate such a system against attacks such as inserting lots of pointers to bogus content. > > A brand new node instead of transfering data is able to scan in what > they have already on cd/dvd rather than have to wait on the data coming > from the freenet to fill the filestore. They downloaded something off of > the newsgroups that maybe the most popular file on the freenet, rather > than having to allow their cache to eventually get the blocks the scan > can allow putting the entire copy in and not just a few blocks of it. > > In terms of the Bit Torrent layout. A user able to scan the files in > would become essentially a new SEED having a full copy of it rather than > one of the distributed copies that has 100 blocks of a 1000 block file > in the cache. 10 people having 100 blocks to send makes it fast.... 1 > person having all 1000 makes it reliable. > > With a request coming in from Freenet to put Disc 10 in... It would be > your disc 10 and not related to anyone elses personal index. The double > blind in this is freenet asks for a disc and not a file and your disc 10 > is not anyone elses disc 10. > > Freenet gets a request for a FILE ID HASH, looks up in its database if > its on the system or on the users off line storage. If it is then the > freenet reads it into the users cache re-encrypting it and breaking it > into the required block sizes and such. > > Unless you are running a program to monitor what is actually copied off > the disc all you know is some one wanted you to put in a CD you burned > in 1992. What actual file was called for is unknown by the person > placing the disc in. > > As for political / ideological overheads.... > > You either have privacy or you don't at the moment much of our world > offers its citizens only the illusion of privacy and the powers that be > want it that way. True Privacy is something that is feared by all > Governments world wide. > > The influx of porn and anarchy materials are common to any system at the > start, it took them about 2 weeks to rename porn with an mp3 extenstion > and jump onto napster when it first started. The percentage of the > system that is porn will change instantly with the influx of a > fileswapping system that can offer some elements of speed as well as > security. 20 Million Users waters the percentages down real fast. > > I would never say it needs to be as fast as the current Bit Torrents > allow, esentially this is a trade you would see about 1/2 the speed in > return for the privacy. As the saying goes when it comes to buying > things you can have any two the price costs you the third..... Cheap, > Fast, or Quality IMHO Freenet is not likely to be even half as fast as bittorrent for really popular files, however, for not-so-popular files it is much faster already, because *there aren't any seeders* on bittorrent for a lot of unpopular files! > > encrypted anonymous private internet, any system that offers true > privacy is not going to be pretty. > > Outside of the virtual world you remove law from our land and give the > general person the ability to live a totally free private life in real > life and you will have a society that is pretty much anarchy. > > Yes it offers a great deal to a person but it also means you need to > take the good with the bad, when it comes to privacy you either have it > or you don't. > > Secure Chat that is obscured completely by the freenet would give people > a reason to run the app. > > With respect to the fileswap at the moment potential idea maybe to have > a polling idea to allow users to catagorize files better. Each File > having basically an NFO that can allow for some organization. If the > FileSwap was able to allow files to be voted on as to them being movie, > book, game, application, picture, X it would allow for some simple > filtering which would improve the image of the system. This is client layer stuff. Freenet itself doesn't know or care what content is. > > Removing files will just see them reposted but being able to screen them > into categories would allow for the users to get rid of materials they > find offensive, 200 people voting on where it belongs would make it > possible with out allowing for abuse in that fashion as well > > Dan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20080513/c7f688fa/attachment.pgp>
