Re: Re: Integration in 0.7

Well, the problem is that users who start off with nodes from the
seednodes would have bad performance. The solution is to implement a
full hybrid network with path folding on the open portions of the
network. The problem with that is that there is little incentive to
migrate to the darknet, and with a hybrid, we have no information on
whether the darknet can work on its own.

I am still of the view that we will have to provide an opennet and a
darknet. If people want to fork and make a hybrid, that's fine. The
darknet should be more or less invulnerable to the slashdot effect, it
will initially be a small network and therefore fast, and as it gets
larger it will have more opportunities for growth.

On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 02:58:09PM +0200, Alex R. Mosteo wrote:
> [Moved from support to general]
> 
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > I'm not interested in the degenerate case of 10 people who all know each
> > other and all connect to each other. I'm interested in scalable
> > darknets. Which are graphs of people, which can be large, where I
> > connect to my friends and my friend connects to his friends.
> 
> It's ok. I'm not arguing nothing about this.
> 
> >>I frankly have a hard time figuring how this can be achieved. When 0.7
> >>is out I guess you and Ian will be the only persons I could ask for
> >>their references, and how would you trust me? What if I have a single
> >>trusted reference, and he's not 24/7 online?
> > 
> > As I have said, strong trust is not required at this stage. Anyone I've
> > ever argued with at length on email or IRC would probably be a
> > candidate. At least as far as getting the topology right goes.
> 
> So probably the initial 0.7 darknet will be composed of people in this
> list and related chat channels/forums.
> 
> If strong trust is not required at this stage, I would ditch all the
> opennet effort. Why is it not required, btw?
> 
> So, what about this: we use something like GWebCache2 to get untrusted
> links. People can volunteer his nodes to be known (harvestable) in
> countries where this poses small risk currently. Simultaneously,
> everybody must work towards finding trusted links. Once you have enough
> (how many would be enough?) you change your listening port and reject
> untrusted links. So you go under the radar. The idea would be for the
> darknet to "virally" posess the opennet area.
> 
> So you would have nodes in three states:
> 
> Nodes with all trusted links. These would form the core darknet, with
> proper topology. Initially the people most devoted to freenet. The inner
> ring of Atlantida, one could say ;)
> 
> Nodes with a mix of trusted/untrusted. These would be in a transitional
> stage.
> 
> Nodes with only untrusted, obtained from webcache, links. These would be
> newcomers. The topology here would be uncertain and routing would work
> worse, I guess.
> 
> Now, instead of saying that your node must be up for a week before
> getting well integrated, we'd say that you must get trusted links.
> 
> I suppose this is prone to be simulated, unless I'm talking nonsense due
> to ignorance.
-- 
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://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat
Or mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe

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

iD8DBQFDMXIgHzsuOmVUoi0RAgrBAJ9ETrSWmIS+8pUvUw09cs8aFi+wRACfSeUW
xwwmdZZrFv2hRtBTTh9DntY=
=bJW6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----