Re: [Mldonkey-users] Now that Filenexus, Sharereactor and Jigle are gone

[mithrandi]

On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 10:27:08 -0600, Curtis Magyar wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-03-20 at 17:01 +0200, mithrandi wrote:
> > via digital signature. Ok, in your website-based system, you could just
> > post on your website, but I'm looking for something more powerful than
> > just websites. Websites (even freesites) are quite centralized and
> > monolithic; the advantages of decentralized networks are not constrained
> > to avoiding legal / political interference.
> 
> No, sharereactor wouldn't endorse the release itself with a signature,
> Sharereactor would endorse the release just by including it on the page,
> like they do now, or at least did before they got shut down.  The
> sharereactor page itself would be endorsed via being signed with the
> public key for the people who publish sharereactor.

Right; notice that I mentioned this.

> > Still not as easy as client software specifically designed for indexing
> > purposes. Also, this is ignoring setting up Freenet etc. The barriers to
> > entry are not significant for power users, but for people unacquainted
> > with these tools, it seems a bit much to have them set up Freenet etc.
> > to use it. Also, Freenet is very slow for accessing content when you
> > first start using it (at least, that has been my experience).
> 
> Thats why I was suggesting a freenet protocol plugin, so the pages could
> be received by mldonkey.  Within the web interface, it would be trivial
> to display the page containing the releases from there.  The other
> clients could launch the default browser just by giving a http link to
> the fproxy.

I was referring to ease of publishing / releasing, not ease of
retrieval.

> Its actually not even necessary to set up a freenet client or the
> plugin.  It could be received via one of many public freenet to http
> gateways, such as: 
> https://freenet.thing.net/servlet/nodeinfo/
> 
> And FileTP should be able to fetch from there.  Doing that removes all
> anonymity from the client as far as freenet is concerned, but that's not
> what we're after since ed2k doesn't provide any to begin with.

Sure.

If you're willing to implement your system and make it user-friendly,
and painless, I'm sure I'd use it :) However, I'm not convinced that it
offers any advantages over mine, and I do think it would require a lot
more work to implement; specifically the Freenet protocol is way more
complex than a simple Kademlia DHT; so, I'll continue hacking on my code
for the moment.

-- 
mithrandi, i Ainil en-Balandor, a faer Ambar

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature