gpg: Signature made Mon May 19 21:38:14 2008 UTC using DSA key ID E43DA450
gpg: Good signature from "Matthew John Toseland <toad@amphibian.dyndns.org>"
On Monday 19 May 2008 20:26, Michael Rogers wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >> Who says we need 8 GB per exchange for it to be viable? Seems to me that
> >> even a few megabytes a day would be useful in a lot of places (or a few
> >> kilobytes if you can choose which channels to participate in).
> >
> > Only if it's a broadcast system, and like I said, they can already do
that.
>
> There's already a sneakernet-based discussion system with channels and
> strong pseudonyms? I don't think so.
Hmmm, I thought you were arguing that the latency would be unacceptable for a
message board system? Also how would you prevent DoS?
>
> > E.g. in Cuba, people use sneakernet to distribute illegal copies of
western
> > films just as they do video of government officials getting hammered in
> > debating with students.
>
> Sure, basic sneakernets already exist, but that doesn't mean more
> advanced sneakernets are redundant.
Broadcast routing requires manual filtering, no? In order to prevent DoS?
>
> > I was hoping for more diverse usage (as in cuba where internet connections
are
> > illegal, or near future china where even darknet freenet may be blocked).
>
> Yeah, I think we have similar goals in mind, we just disagree about
> whether a high-latency variant of Freenet is the best way to achieve them.
>
> > However a modern underground organisation isn't necessarily a strict
> > hierarchy.
>
> Right, but it isn't necessarily a routable small world either. My point
> is that Freenet relies on the social network having a certain form,
> whereas Usenet-style flooding doesn't.
True, but it has other problems.
With passive requests, a message system would likely have almost exactly the
same performance on a high latency Freenet as on a broadcast-routed network.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
