At 08:25 PM 8/9/2002 -0700, AARG!Anonymous wrote:
As far as Freenet and MojoNation, we all know that the latter shut down, probably in part because the attempted traffic-control mechanisms made the whole network so unwieldy that it never worked.
I worked there and respectfully disagree. MN never gained a foothold first and foremost because of the frequent join/leave problem. This, in turn, was a direct result of insufficient resources to address automated publication of .mp3 header data. The inability of the client SW to automatically create the header data and publish directories full of .mp3 files at each client meant users had to expend more much effort to make available their content than file-oriented P2P alternatives. This hurdle, when combined with data retention problems related to other MN deficiencies, assured that little content was available for DL. New users simply abandoned the effort when they came up empty handed. The introducer problem could probably have been solved using Usenet postings. The nature of Usenet meant it could scale and was fairly resistant legal and technical attacks. Usenet might also have served for a fallback block store but neither approach was ever carefully considered, again due to resource limitations.
At least in part this was also due to malicious clients, according to the analysis at http://www.cs.rice.edu/Conferences/IPTPS02/188.pdf.
My experience is that the malicious client problem was not a major issue. [much deleted]
Lucky can provide all this misinformation, all under the pretence, mind you, that this *is* TCPA. He was educating the audience, mostly people who were completely unfamiliar with the system other than some vague rumors. And this is what he presents, a tissue of lies and fabrications and unfounded sensationalism.
At Lucky's Defcon talk he stated that he was a participant in the development of TCPA. Can't clearly recall in what capacity he served but me recollection is it was as a reviewer. steve