[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GNUnet-developers] gnunet-chat

From: Christian Grothoff
Subject: Re: [GNUnet-developers] gnunet-chat
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 16:24:33 -0500
User-agent: KMail/1.4.1

Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 18 September 2002 10:37 pm, James Blackwell wrote:
> > Well, I don't know how to change the build process to selectively build
> > it (--with-chat), but either way, go a head and put any message that you
> > see fit
> >
> >:-)
> How about a simple #ifdef ?

Nope, won't work. It's a separate binary and a shared library, not code that 
would be compiled in.

> > Chat messages will be received since capabilities are not advertised;
> > yet, the node will certainly not forward any chat traffic. If the chat
> > code would be improved to only send messages to other participants, the
> > node may not receive any traffic at all. The problem is, that on the
> > internet, you can never make sure that somebody else is not sending you
> > data, all we can do is drop it on the floor.
> Yes. Not much can be to stop traffic once someone has decided to send
> it. Maybe the right solution is to penalize any host that sends us chat
> packets. This would work well in hand with the fundamental philosphy
> behind gnunet: Get rewarded for what others want by getting what you
> want. Heavy chatters would actually be encouraged to hold larger stores
> (thus more likely become cachers of more useful data) to pay their debt
> to society.

It's not that easy. First, what if there is more chat-traffic than other 
traffic? There would not be enough files to pay for the chat. In an economy, 
you always need means for both, spending and earning money. Also, who is to 
say that the person saying something is to blame? Maybe it's just someone who 
is very knowledeable and is answering questions of others. Also, if we would 
have a better model (not broadcast), the listeners are also responsible for 
some part of the traffic -- if they were not listening, GNUnet would not have 
to route the messages to them. 
Many questions to whichI don't have a definite answer at the moment. Food for 
thought, though.

Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]