Alen Peacock <alenlpeac...@gmail.com> wrote: > You might find Samsara's "claims" relevant here. Long chains are > problematic, but it's a clever primitive. There may be more recent > work in this area that I'm not aware of: > > http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.114.3963&rep=rep1&type=pdf
So apologies for not responding until now, I've been bombarded with a number of papers I really need to consider before formulating a proper reply. In the meantime, for those of you who have linked me papers describing similar systems, do you think any of these systems could potentially have the properties I'm describing, i.e. do you think they have the requisite ingredients to be the world-scale singular peer-to-peer distributed filesystem that all of humanity could share? Sean Lynch <se...@literati.org> wrote: > > I'm skeptical of any system that requires you to store data you're not > interested in. This is a valid claim that any world-scale peer-to-peer filesystem must overcome. I'd hope that such a system would require you store content you *are* interested in much in the way BitTorrent does already, i.e. to access content you must download it and make it available to the network for some period of time. Perhaps it's a fair concession that people who act solely as consumers only store and redistribute content that they themselves are interested in. However, I think this same system should allow the ability to store arbitrary content (in a similar manner to MNet/Tahoe/Freenet/GNUnet). I would argue that one of the concessions that you make in order to store your own content on the network (content which is perhaps cryptographically inaccessible by others) you must in turn store others' content. -- Tony Arcieri
_______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
