Re: Re: [Tech] Crazy idea: How trust in darknets enables secure democratic censorship
Tom Kaitchuck <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.freenet.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Matthew Toseland wrote: >On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 02:41:54PM -0700, Tom Kaitchuck wrote: > > >>Matthew Toseland wrote: >> >> >> >>>On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:33:03AM -0700, Tom Kaitchuck wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Matthew Toseland wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Well, if the invaders start censoring stuff posted by the minority, the >>>>>expected result is that the minority would sever links with the >>>>>invaders - as a normal part of an upheld complaint, because the minority >>>>>would oppose the motion. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>And go where? It is a darknet, they don't know each other personally, >>>>how can they connect? (especially given that they know they shouldn't >>>>trust most people.) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Ummm, they'd still have their own connections, which make up a >>>contiguous darknet built from knowing each other personally. What's the >>>problem? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Suppose 5% of people want to talk about something 50% find it offencive >>and 45% don't care? Odds are not every person in that 5% is connected to >>everyone else in that 5% without going through someone in the 50%! And >>even if they can through those in the 45%, this clearly implies the >>network cannot split. So how will routing work for each of these three >>groups? >> >> > >The network can't split. 50% isn't enough. You'd need a supermajority, >as I have explained - AT EACH NODE. It's not a global vote. Each node >would need 2/3rds of its connections to vote, and would need them >(including a biased score from the first layer of indirectly connected >nodes) to vote yes at say 2/3rds (supermajority depends on sanctions to >be taken, but 2/3rds sounds reasonable to trace the author). We would >probably have a large number of blocks to trace, so we could to some >extent work around uncooperative bits of the network, but the objective >is to find the node that posted the data, or the sub-network that it is >part of. We can then either warn them, or sever connections with them >(either all connections or premix connections). > > I was assuming that there would be enough vairation in local oppinion given that the groups are connected by aquantinces that there would be local pockets of variation of oppinion. However what I was getting at, was could go through a real usecase that takes into account all the varrious possible roles in this scheme? _______________________________________________ chat mailing list [email protected] Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe