Matthew Toseland writes: > On 09/02/16 08:58, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: >> Because in normal swapping, as soon as the network settled a bit, the >> changes in location should be small (though my nodestats look different: >> too large changes in location for my taste…). So the node data should >> still be reachable. When randomizing the position, however, the step is >> large and the node might settle into a new part of the keyspace, so the >> store might not be reachable anymore. > > Not in all cases. E.g. merging several growing darknets? Is this slow > enough that we don't care? > > OTOH: Can this be used as some sort of DoS? Is 2 hops enough? Etc.
Maybe this should simply be regular insertion, which however would limit the convergence speed. > This was likely discussed way back when darknet was first proposed, > maybe Oskar has an opinion about it ... It would be great to recover some of this, given that now more people seem willing to actually invest in building friend-to-friend connections (though I’m nut sure whether I just have that impression because it works for me now). >> We can’t keep nodes from leaving, but we can keep swapping which spans >> large parts of the keyspace from making parts of the datastore >> inaccessible. > > On a hybrid network we still have the aristocracy problem: Because > opennet is meritocratic, fast nodes tend to connect to fast nodes. Hence > the distribution is likely to be non-uniform - slow nodes will be out on > the edge and have poor connectivity i.e. possibly a different mean > distance?? This is not connected to losing store content due to darknet swapping, right? Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein ohne es zu merken
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
