I apologize in advance if this isn't helpful.
> The argument that this "explosion" of messages will swamp the network
is
> also incorrect - think about it. What is the ideal result of an update
> (whatever the mechanism)? It is that all of the nodes currently
caching
> the data to be updated, will (after the update) be caching the updated
> data. This means that at some point, sooner-or-later, they must
recieve
> the update, whether through my explosion mechanism, or through your
> mechanism where the updates will be carried in DataReplies.
This is correct assuming that other nodes want the update. In that case
there is really no difference in the volume of messages used in an
"explosion" technique or a request technique for updates. However if you
used the explosion technique would a malicious node be able to swamp the
network by repeatedly updating say 100 times a second? It seems that
updates should be validated by their popularity just like other documents
on Freenet.
Kevin
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
