#3 Tighter control over who to add

[Anonymous]

I would like to be able to specifically select which
hosts should be my neighbours. No auto-adding unless
specified in config.

This because i want to keep tight control over who
connects through me. As long as i select them myself
its my own fault if it turns out that one of them
compromises my safety.

[Nobody/Anonymous]

Logged In: NO

I doub't that having one "evil" node can ruin your whole
week. The point of this is to make it so that no one can say
for sure that you are supplying a file or if you are just
passing a file through your node.
What is needed is a way to prevent the same BLOCK of IP
ranges from connecting completely AROUND you, with no other
IP connected.
There should always be a big range difference between all
the connected nodes, and we should have a list of known
"evil" nodes.

[Nobody/Anonymous]

Logged In: NO

Isn't this sort of contrary? You don't know who is
connecting to you anyway because everybody is forced
anonomous (all you know is that ABDY475DI6 connected to you).

[Nobody/Anonymous]

Logged In: NO

It is not contrary, since you actually know the IP of all
your neigbors, not only the ID such as ABDY475DI6.

In reply to the other post. Well, it can ruin my whole week.
In some places (oppresive regimes) just nowing you
redistributed or helped searching for something might be
illegal.

But that risk might be worth it if you know that the ones
who actually know they are connected to _you_ are trusted by
you personally.

And if they burn you, it's your own judgment that is to blame.

Anyway, it shouldn't be that hard to implement this
paranoia-mode? Basically just accept a setting that excludes
autoconnecting to seed-nodes? Or am I missing something?

I hope I've explained it enough for you to see how this
would raise the safteylevel a notch for the even more paranoid.

[Maarten Maathuis]

Logged In: YES
user_id=781921

Be aware that that can lead to a cluttered network, because:
A wants to connect to F
A=connected to B -> B=connected to C -> etc
normally this would probably happen
A->B->C->D->E->F <--he sees that
example: A->D->F
still the security of not directly connecting, but he only uses
the bandwith(everything is usually fully routed trough someone
else) of one extra user(=D), otherwise of 4(=B, C, D, E)

[Nobody/Anonymous]

Logged In: NO

This might be so, but it could also allow more people to
trust the network and make their information available. And
once the information is free more people will probably share
it if it is important enough to share.

One must keep in mind that you can have it both ways, allow
the more cautious/paranoid a way to connect only thru
trusted hosts and the rest, who doesn't need the extra
caution, to connect through seed nodes.

What will be the real unique selling point of MUTE will
probably be the ability to let more sources contribute due
to the high privacy/safty level of the sources. These
features shouldn't be forgotten when trying to increase the
efficiency of the network.

[Nobody/Anonymous]

Logged In: NO

This might be so, but it could also allow more people to
trust the network and make their information available. And
once the information is free more people will probably share
it if it is important enough to share.

One must keep in mind that you can have it both ways, allow
the more cautious/paranoid a way to connect only thru
trusted hosts and the rest, who doesn't need the extra
caution, to connect through seed nodes.

What will be the real unique selling point of MUTE will
probably be the ability to let more sources contribute due
to the high privacy/safty level of the sources. These
features shouldn't be forgotten when trying to increase the
efficiency of the network.