[Tech] Distributed Drive and Increased Usage

[Matthew Toseland]

Sounds centralised, and not very freenet-ish. Note that if an ISP had a court 
order, they'd just wait for it to rotate, and then track it.

On Wednesday 14 May 2008 16:22, Dan wrote:
>  >I still don't see how you are going to distribute one node over 8 
>  >peers. And I don't understand what you are talking about with 10 - 15 
>  >minutes either.
> 
> Using the people running a Chat Application as a Miniture Server to run 
> an applet, Say a 6 person Chat Room. The idea would be that the Mini 
> Server maintains basic communications I would guess in a "T" form to a 
> back up server which in turn has 2 it maintains.
> 
> The primary server being located at the bottom of the "T"
> 
> The Channel as it is has the locations where to meet up should the 
> primary server fail for what ever reason Net Burp, BSoD, Power Outage.
> 
> The Primary Server functions in that role for 10-15-20 minutes then 
> pass's the Role of Primary to the Center of the "T" being released from 
> the role of server for that group and seeks out a new job for another 20 
> mins. The New Primary Mini Server once it has its 3 new replacements 
> releases its 2 back ups and those two then seek out new job assignments.
> 
> The Chat Clients pick the 4 for the job not the servers.
> 
> Moving the Server Element in this form every what ever minutes limits 
> the value of any recording being done at that location, IP Tracking on 
> the mini - server would result in 20 mins or what ever of activity that 
> is further buffered by being communications between the server applet 
> and 6 Chat Clients functioning as a TOR style relay
> 
> This prevents any tracking of the data exchange by ISP or even by an 
> official serving as a CHATTER.
> 
> 1. the Channel that forms the members have the keys not the server so 
> the converstaion is not able to be monitored.
> 
> 2. The Client Members are the ones that pick up the untrusted components 
> to fill the "T" not the mini server. This being the case even if the 
> Mini Server is being ran on an officials site for monitoring they are 
> only getting relay address points and not user IP anything.
> 
> 3. Moving in a fairly short time also prevents any pattern checking to 
> be used against it.
> 
> Ignoring the concept of requiring a Court Order and such, the Red Tape 
> on just an ISP to ISP call asking to quickly start to trace on the 
> connections happening around IP Blaa would see the server applet move 
> and the group before any form of cooperation in that form could be attained.
> 
> Granted if the IP's are all with in a single ISP they would not have 
> that issue but the internet spans not only companies but borders.
> 
> The bandwidth use could also allow the movement of 1/2 a data package as 
> well for the FreeNet allowing for a server that is chatting only to 
> still play TOR Relay for the Free Net.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tech mailing list
> Tech at freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20080515/9d7caa9c/attachment.pgp