-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/22/2011 11:19 AM, Tony Arcieri wrote: > Alen Peacock <alenlpeac...@gmail.com <mailto: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 > > <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 <mailto: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.
I think that your argument is 100% valid and sound. It is (with a single exception) impossible to have both 1) Guarantee that the content that you wish to distribute will remain visible after you go offline and 2) Guarantee that you store only content that you are "interested in". (The exception i am mentioning comes from some sort of mandate that all the nodes/computers remain online all the time, which is unrealistic and undesirable for ecological reasons). At least some of the content will be interesting only to the people who appear online after you go offline. And if you refer to the "whole of the humanity" that segment will become larger as you are talking about different time-zones and thus patterns of online activity. > -- > Tony Arcieri > > > > _______________________________________________ > p2p-hackers mailing list > p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com > http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers - -- http://freedom.libsyn.com/ Echo of Freedom, Radical Podcast "None of us are free until all of us are free." ~ Mihail Bakunin -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOVK6uAAoJENW9VI+wmYas6BYH/0+B4SKg9wz9f3xPyKFnq2pt +2dONq0ysQRWNUK4TLHzGalfAGUtHrB7StkgZog5yLH14c57WT+gP2WBZs8qe3lx XTBzX4IOrQM7PoQXViOGkCJp1ipPgVUPOn0JVKNTFigcGe7oLqsBMQ1lYE7lsWIP nD6urFf689Sa1X02pT414yvMAcbYPQJw3utyRuDq77YqENKpqPfi2XPY8HEyDaDg ckNXOhr2LnC1Gx0xXcZwwTm3r3xLAoTh/2mosHCVt4GtDsuRQJXC+yGLk9szx3kj AU+qugQYQvnSYN0kJtItVJOdrf6+oZfAoEwI2artFf+EN3OmCPehbaFb+ZcehQM= =m72m -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
