Re: Some ideas on Freenet architecture

Matthew John Toseland <[email protected]> Sat, 16 Sep 2017 15:33:34 +0100

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

On 16/09/17 08:31, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> 
> 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?

I don't know?
> 
>>> 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
>

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)