On 5/14/08, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote:
> 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.

Darknet user have to be motivated to add new trusted friends, and
their friends have to be motivated too. We don't have enough motivated
users..

In my experience, I have *tried* to convince two friends to run
freenet. One of them refused because of the disk space usage (this is
a lame reason, but still). The another friend installed that (and
found the installation quite managable), considered to add some
content, but don't want to start it because of the high memory usage.
I am too depressed to try to convince another friends.

If we want a real working darknet, I think we have to (sort from
lowest to highest priority):
  1) lower the memory usage (0.7.1 ?)

  2) easier friend finding.
      There was a facebook app for this, but it's not working.

  3) small (<128MiB) store mode
      Currently freenet is very slow without a good store/cache.

> [...]

Reply via email to