Florent Daigni?re wrote: > * Jano <alejandro at mosteo.com> [2008-05-14 > 12:55:49]: > >> Florent Daigni?re wrote: >> >> > * Jano <alejandro at mosteo.com> [2008-05-14 >> > 11:21:05]: >> > >> >> > Personally I'm pretty skeptical of anything requiring more than 100MB. >> >> >> >> However, current implementation (IINM) uses the cache to resume >> >> downloads. Thus, downloading anything bigger than that in more than one >> >> go has the potential of a lot of waste in retries (hence BW & time). >> >> >> >> I know, it's a spurious reason since downloads in progress could be saved >> >> somewhere else until completion... but still is a reason for now. >> >> >> > >> > They are good reasons why we shouldn't implement download-resuming. >> >> Could you please elaborate? >> > > For the n-th. time : not having that "feature" gives users a good > incentive to keep their nodes up.
OK. I completely disagree, but I don't want to re-discuss this old topic right now. I thought you had some security-wise reasons in mind.
