On Friday 24 April 2009 06:40:16 bbackde at googlemail.com wrote: > Long CHK keys are ok for me, most important is that they are static > and all inserts produces the same key.
Well, we will still have content types. Although using ?type=<mime type> is a plausible option. > Will the CHK keys have a fix length? Yes, for a given number of redundant top-blocks. At least to the same degree that we do now - do we pad the base64 data for each part of the key? If not it could occasionally be a bit less... > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 03:06, Matthew Toseland > <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > > On Thursday 23 April 2009 21:14:01 guido wrote: > >> Am Donnerstag 23 April 2009 14:48:43 schrieb Matthew Toseland: > >> > I would really appreciate input on option 2 i.e. how much of a problem are > >> > long CHKs? > >> > >> If CHK key lengths as they are now are not bad enough to keep people from > >> using them, then making them 50% longer won't be, either. > > > > Twice as long. > >> > >> Besides, making the pathname of the file a mandatory part of the key is > > already > >> having larger impact on average key lengths then this would. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090425/2c2de507/attachment.pgp>
