On Sat, 2003-05-03 at 13:34, Edward J. Huff wrote: > On Sat, 2003-05-03 at 12:56, Mark J Roberts wrote: > > If you entangle your file with my illegal document, which is later > > suppressed, you have nobody to blame but yourself when your file > > must be reinserted. It's sort of like announcing that you intend to > > jump off a cliff unless I give you a million dollars. I have no > > legal obligation to keep you from jumping.
To amplify further, when you start inserting your illegal document, what you insert is two new random files. Some time later, you insert a formula for your document into a circulating stream of formulas. Meanwhile, the random bits you inserted may well be used in the formula for other documents. One of the files is actually random. The other is indistinguishable from being random. No one can tell which is which. They can only produce the document when combined with other files according to a formula which includes encryption keys. Meanwhile, they can produce other documents when used with other formulas. So suppression has to be aimed at the very small formula instead of at the large random files. But distributing very small files is a lot easier, and the big files can be routed efficiently to specialized nodes. Redundant storage is accomplished by storing the same file under different formulas, and it is never necessary to store a particular file anywhere but at its one specialized node. Loss of a node does not cause loss of content (even though there is only one permanent copy of any given file) because the content can be reconstructed from many different sets of files. > > The idea is your illegal document would have been entangled > with other legal documents. [...] -- Ed Huff _______________________________________________ devl mailing list devl at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
