Re: Some ideas on Freenet architecture

Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab-S0/[email protected]> Sat, 16 Sep 2017 09:31:47 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.network.freenet.devel
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Matthew John Toseland <[email protected]> writes:
> The above is slightly inaccurate. For a genuine user, the third step
> starts off as a bundle, then later becomes a broadcast. We enforce the
> scarcity and popularity requirements in both stages.

Doesn’t enforcing scarcity at the bundle level create information
leakage about the length of the bundle-tunnel?

>> However a solation which keeps the resilience of WoT active could be
>> built on top of what you describe by not having one global queue but
>> rather N queues with each ID trusting one of the queues chosen at
>> random. Every day you choose another section to watch.
>> 
>> N could be chosen by taking the size of the WoT into account.
>
> For Scarce KSKs to work, as currently designed, the queue needs to be
> *very* popular. So maybe have everyone subscribe to the global queue,
> but new identities only accepted automatically by some randomised subset
> of the graph. Then you need to get some likes or whatever before you can
> be seen more widely.

That should work, too, yes.

There could also be multiple different applications listening for the
same queue. It only says "there’s a new key".

>> This would enable use-cases like automatic newsbots (something I’m
>> sorely missing for babcom_cli).
>
> I don't understand this use-case.

I’d like to provide users with some amount of autonomous systems who for
example aggregate posts about a given topic. Something like mailing
lists. But for these, they must work without user interaction, but
without opening an avenue for spamming.

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 832 B)