On 22/04/16 21:31, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > 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? No, but does it affect the Pitch Black fix? No, because hybrid nodes don't swap?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
