Re: Campaigning for Open-Net [WAS Re: [freenet-support] Freenet 0, 5 and 0, 7]

This is not true. A global darknet is feasible, as I have explained:
National barriers, and even language barriers are by no means absolute,
and to the extent that they affect the network they can be dealt with.
If Freenet provides something of value, we can make a large darknet.

AND IF IT ISN'T THERE IS NO POINT IN DOING FREENET BECAUSE IF FREENET
EVER DOES MEET ITS GOALS IT WILL BE ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE.

That is not to say that opennet isn't important. Opennet will be
implemented. But not yet, because it is not time to do it yet. We do not
want to introduce more chaos to an already chaotic situation by
implementing opennet before we have even started to sort out load
balancing, for example.

On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 03:53:20AM +0200, somebody wrote:
> >
> The answer is simple.  Without open-net and at least some reasonable percentage of nodes
> operating as part of both open and dark nets, 0.7 will NEVER become part of any global
> network.  It will instead be limited, broken into hundreds or thousands of little
> 'island netowrks'
> 
> Open-net is required to tie these islands into a global network.
> 
> I will repeat something I read on frost recently,
> 
> "We should all start pestering the hell outta both Ian and Toad to get open-net deployed."
-- 
Matthew J Toseland - toad-EI5O+8PHWbJeeLb3ft/[email protected]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.

_______________________________________________
chat mailing list
[email protected]
Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat
Or mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFE9J9rOHFIJVywduQRApBfAJwJLE/6Axs6TUZNfOwOb7m7hoNEKwCeKHZc
09mcgHUmHfnUYwsrrRyT3pc=
=MrSX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----