[freenet-chat] Arguments against the Darknet

[Colin Davis]

That's the idea. Like I said, we'll probably have opennet eventually.
>

Then we agree ;)
I don't think that freenet can do an opennet until the darkenet works  
properly. My concern is that the darknet will never work properly,  
however.

>
> They can, although they are already blown. Anyway the point is that  
> it's
> mechanically possible to distinguish between the two, so you have no
> "plausible deniability" that they were actually opennet refs.
>>

Sure you do.
Keep in mind, if you turn off opennet, all the opennet nodes become  
normal darknet connections under this model.

> It could be done best (topology wise) in the node itself.

Agreed.

>
> Opennet will not fix the backoff problem. :)
>
> We need to fix that first, as it's likely that load balancing/limiting
> will be much harder on opennet due to much more connection churn.

Keep in mind, connection churn may be a symptom of the users treating  
the current .7 system like an opennet, even though it's not.
#Freenet-refs, etc.
I'm not sure that this CAN be fixed, but I'll do what I can to help.



>>
>>> I doubt it very much. The worry is that nobody will use the  
>>> darknet at
>>> all except in very small disconnected groups. And when the rug is  
>>> pulled
>>> from under our feet, we will not have anything resembling the
>>> infrastructure we should have had.
>>
>> Under a system where an opennet essentially IS a series of darkent
>> connections, if the opennet dies, the network can still act as a  
>> darknet.
>> Since you can't get any new opennet connections, your existing  
>> connections
>> essentially act as darknet connections.
>
> No, your existing opennet connections have been harvested and blocked.

I don't necessarily agree- For one, the opennet would still work in  
areas it's not blocked.
Ie, if China blocked Opennet, it would still work in the USA.

Then, since the darknet connections interface to the opennet, you  
could establish darknet connections to someone who /could/ still  
access the opennet, and still use it.


>> Sure- That's compared to a true darknet. I agree a true darknet is  
>> best.
>> Compared to a boot-strapped, IRC driven network, opennet is better.
>
> IRC is for bootstrapping. It shouldn't be a permanent solution...

I agree it shouldn't be a permanent solution. But it IS the solution  
for the forseeable future. Wishes and dreams about people personally  
exchanging aside, they aren't going to do that any time soon ;)


> There are proposals for opennet. I don't think it is time to do them
> yet.

OK. I accept that, and support it. I don't think it's something that  
should be delayed beyond Christmas, however...
IRC connections are allowing people to treat .7 like an opennet  
already. It might be better if we accepted that fact,  and worked to  
embrace it, rather than fighting it.

As always, I only aim to help.
-Colin
> -- 
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20060626/a729dda4/attachment.htm