Oskar Sandberg wrote: > I'm actually warming up the idea of making the address: > > physical address + fingerprint + number > > and having the node lookup: > > ARK(fingerprint , (number + 1)) > > should the connect fail (ARK is Address Resolution Key).
I had been thinking more along the lines of making the address just "fingerprint + number", and doing the above lookup if the connect fails OR if the physical address is unknown. But you're right, there's a performance advantage to be had from including the physical address. I can't think of any drawbacks. > > Any use of public keys implies a web of trust, no? > > No, there is no real web of trust here. Or a loose one at most. Nodes > learn about new nodes by reading the DataSource: field in data carrying > messages, and then connect to it. There is no way of verifying that the > address in the DataSource is the "correct" in any sense of the word - it > could very well be pointing at a malicious node. I started writing an epic here, then decided it's all off topic. Sufficient to say: > Except for the part about "trusted hosts" (we trust nobody) I agree. For "trusted", substitude "preferred". -- zem at zip.com.au F289 2BDB 1DA0 F4C4 DC87 EC36 B2E3 4E75 C853 FD93 zem.squidly.org "..I'm invisible, I'm invisible, I'm invisible.." _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
