Long CHK keys are ok for me, most important is that they are static
and all inserts produces the same key.
Will the CHK keys have a fix length?
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 03:06, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Thursday 23 April 2009 21:14:01 guido wrote:
>> Am Donnerstag 23 April 2009 14:48:43 schrieb
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.
Besides, ma
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Thursday 23 April 2009 07:17:36 xor wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > The filename is ignored. This will make the Frost folk happy.
>> >
>> Now that DOES sound good. Especially if you consider that it is sometimes
>> difficult to restore the original
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Hailey wrote:
>
> On Apr 23, 2009, at 12:34 PM, Florent Daigniere wrote:
>
>> Robert Hailey wrote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps there is an easier solution?
>>>
>>> How about extending the chk logic into an alternate-chk-key (ACK?);
>>> that simply adds
raketo.de/inhalt/ich/pubkey.txt
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090423/a5e0ed6c/attachment.pgp>
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:05:40 Ian Clarke wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Node" should really be replaced with "Client" *everywhere* because
>>> client is the common word.
>>>
>> Is it? When I talk to non-techies abo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> I would really appreciate input on option 2 i.e. how much of a problem are
> long CHKs?
If Long CHKs will become too much of a problem, and people won't mind their
content being spoofed, then people will start using KSK...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Thursday 23 April 2009 07:17:36 xor wrote:
>>> The filename is ignored. This will make the Frost folk happy.
>>>
>> Now that DOES sound good. Especially if you consider that it is sometimes
>> difficult to restore the origi
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> I would really appreciate input on option 2 i.e. how much of a problem are
> long CHKs?
>
> On Thursday 23 April 2009 03:03:00 Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> Argh, no, this doesn't work, because the pubkey is known, and there is no
> way
>> fo
s !
-- 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/20090423/3436298c/attachment.pgp>
he network. But it might be an
interesting idea for a plugin.
>
> Best wishes,
> Arne
-- 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/20090423/8da026bb/attachment.pgp>
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Robert Hailey
wrote:
> Yea, but Matthew's language has a more technically-accurate flavor (as
> "your node" implies the distributed nature of freenet, whereas
> "freenet is downloading" makes it sound like a monolithic entity).
Technically accurate flavor is secon
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
>> Is it? ?When I talk to non-techies about a "client" they think I'm referring
>> to the person that employs a lawyer. ?I think the least confusing term to
>> use in this context may be "software".
>>
> Very clumbersome. How would you tran
Robert Hailey wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>
>> It has recently come to our attention that the problem with data
>> persistence
>> is usually that the top block has fallen out or that the few nodes
>> with the
>> block are never online at the same time as the p
On Friday 24 April 2009 00:44:59 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
> >> Is it? When I talk to non-techies about a "client" they think I'm
referring
> >> to the person that employs a lawyer. I think the least confusing term to
> >> use in this contex
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
On Thursday 23 April 2009 20:06:13 VolodyA! V Anarhist wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > I would really appreciate input on option 2 i.e. how much of a problem are
> > long CHKs?
>
> If Long CHKs will become too much of a problem, and people won't mind their
> content being spoofed, then people
2009/4/24 :
> Author: sashee
> Date: 2009-04-23 20:06:00 + (Thu, 23 Apr 2009)
> New Revision: 27271
>
> Added:
> trunk/freenet/src/freenet/clients/http/staticfiles/js/
> trunk/freenet/src/freenet/clients/http/staticfiles/js/progresspage.js
> Modified:
> trunk/freenet/src/freenet/clients/
2009/4/23 Matthew Toseland :
> On Wednesday 15 April 2009 07:43:14 j16s...@freenetproject.org wrote:
>> Author: j16sdiz
>> Date: 2009-04-15 06:43:12 + (Wed, 15 Apr 2009)
>> New Revision: 26829
>>
>> Modified:
>> trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/fcp/FCPClient.java
>> Log:
>> revert r26828: req.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Robert Hailey
wrote:
> Yea, but Matthew's language has a more technically-accurate flavor (as
> "your node" implies the distributed nature of freenet, whereas
> "freenet is downloading" makes it sound like a monolithic entity).
Technically accurate flavor is secon
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
>> Is it? When I talk to non-techies about a "client" they think I'm referring
>> to the person that employs a lawyer. I think the least confusing term to
>> use in this context may be "software".
>>
> Very clumbersome. How would you tran
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> I would really appreciate input on option 2 i.e. how much of a problem are
> long CHKs?
>
> On Thursday 23 April 2009 03:03:00 Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> Argh, no, this doesn't work, because the pubkey is known, and there is no
> way
>> fo
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> After a long conversation with p0s, I am fairly sure that our decision at last
> year's summit to use non-convergent encryption for splitfiles (i.e. a
> different set of blocks each time) in order to largely solve our security
> problems
" with "Download link" on the downloads & uploads page.
>
> Yes, or perhaps just "link".
>
> Ian.
-- 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/20090423/08146157/attachment.pgp>
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Robert Hailey
wrote:
>
> On Apr 23, 2009, at 12:34 PM, Florent Daigniere wrote:
>
> Robert Hailey wrote:
>
> Perhaps there is an easier solution?
>
> How about extending the chk logic into an alternate-chk-key (ACK?);
>
> that simply adds 0.25 to the expected locat
---
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090423/a9c82dd0/attachment.html>
Am Donnerstag 23 April 2009 15:16:40 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
> Arguably nobody ever types CHKs even now, and copy and paste allows for
> fairly long keys. Thoughts?
You know what I think.
The length of the key doesn't matter to me, because freesites already hide
them in links, and otherwise I
On Apr 23, 2009, at 3:09 PM, VolodyA! V Anarhist wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Robert Hailey wrote:
>>
>> Sorta like this...
>>
>> package freenet.keys;
>>
>> public class ASKKey extends NodeCHK {
>> public double toNormalizedDouble() {
>> return (super.toNormalized
> -Original Message-
> From: devl-bounces at freenetproject.org
> [mailto:devl-bounces at freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Toseland
> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:17 PM
> To: support at freenetproject.org; Discussion of development issues
> Cc: Ian Clarke
> Subject: [freenet-
- 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/20090423/f49aaee8/attachment.pgp>
> -Original Message-
> From: devl-bounces at freenetproject.org
> [mailto:devl-bounces at freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Toseland
> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 2:48 PM
> To: Discussion of development issues
> Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Easy top block duplication:
> ContentM
> -Original Message-
> From: arne_bab at web.de [mailto:arne_bab at web.de]
> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 11:21 AM
> To: devl at freenetproject.org
> Cc: xor
> Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Non-convergent encryption kills
> easy filesharing
>
> Am Donnerstag 23 April 2009 09:25:15 schr
tive of
> implementing yet another key type if there are so many alternatives to it.
Because none of the alternatives solves the problem.
-- 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/20090423/f1f709b7/attachment.pgp>
On Apr 23, 2009, at 2:22 PM, Mike Bush wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:05:40 Ian Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor wrote:
>>>
>>>
"Node" should really be replaced with "Client" *everywhere* because
client is the common word.
etation...
--
Robert Hailey
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090423/760595ae/attachment.html>
a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090423/6b272130/attachment.pgp>
On Apr 23, 2009, at 3:11 PM, Evan Daniel wrote:
I suggested the obvious extension of this on IRC. Instead of simple
searching at location + 0.25, you search at location + n/N, where n is
which copy of the block you're looking for, and N is the number of
copies inserted.
Toad didn't like this
-- 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/20090423/266dbd1f/attachment.pgp>
eeps you from doing the right
> > thing, just do the right thing anyway.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Arne
-- 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/20090423/b87e069b/attachment.pgp>
> ckey_base = H ( H ( data + "1" ) )
> >
> > Create a series of crypto keys:
> >
> > ckey_N = H ( ckey_base + "N" )
> >
> > Insert to a series of SSKs:
> >
> > SSK@,,
> >
> > Announce the key:
> >
> > UMK,N@,/
> > (Where N is the number of copies inserted)
> >
> > The filename is ignored. This will make the Frost folk happy.
> >
>
>
>
-- 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/20090423/1e1b599b/attachment.pgp>
n-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/20090423/1ce6cd38/attachment.pgp>
On Apr 23, 2009, at 3:09 PM, VolodyA! V Anarhist wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Robert Hailey wrote:
>>
>> Sorta like this...
>>
>> package freenet.keys;
>>
>> public class ASKKey extends NodeCHK {
>> public double toNormalizedDouble() {
>> return (super.toNormalized
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.
Besides, ma
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Robert Hailey
wrote:
>
> On Apr 23, 2009, at 12:34 PM, Florent Daigniere wrote:
>
> Robert Hailey wrote:
>
> Perhaps there is an easier solution?
>
> How about extending the chk logic into an alternate-chk-key (ACK?);
>
> that simply adds 0.25 to the expected locat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert Hailey wrote:
>
> On Apr 23, 2009, at 12:34 PM, Florent Daigniere wrote:
>
>> Robert Hailey wrote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps there is an easier solution?
>>>
>>> How about extending the chk logic into an alternate-chk-key (ACK?);
>>> that simply adds
On Apr 23, 2009, at 2:22 PM, Mike Bush wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:05:40 Ian Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor wrote:
>>>
>>>
"Node" should really be replaced with "Client" *everywhere* because
client is the common word.
On Apr 23, 2009, at 12:34 PM, Florent Daigniere wrote:
Robert Hailey wrote:
Perhaps there is an easier solution?
How about extending the chk logic into an alternate-chk-key (ACK?);
that simply adds 0.25 to the expected location (for routing and
storage).
So when you insert the top block, p
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:05:40 Ian Clarke wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Node" should really be replaced with "Client" *everywhere* because
>>> client is the common word.
>>>
>> Is it? When I talk to non-techies abo
Am Mittwoch 22 April 2009 14:53:45 schrieb Arne Babenhauserheide:
> Am Mittwoch 22 April 2009 14:38:29 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
> > I don't know. IMHO 150 is probably too much, have you spoken privately to
> > all these people?
>
> I think all people I know privately, including school and universi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> I would really appreciate input on option 2 i.e. how much of a problem are
> long CHKs?
If Long CHKs will become too much of a problem, and people won't mind their
content being spoofed, then people will start using KSK...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Thursday 23 April 2009 07:17:36 xor wrote:
>>> The filename is ignored. This will make the Frost folk happy.
>>>
>> Now that DOES sound good. Especially if you consider that it is sometimes
>> difficult to restore the origi
Am Donnerstag 23 April 2009 15:16:40 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
> Arguably nobody ever types CHKs even now, and copy and paste allows for
> fairly long keys. Thoughts?
You know what I think.
The length of the key doesn't matter to me, because freesites already hide
them in links, and otherwise I
On Apr 22, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> It has recently come to our attention that the problem with data
> persistence
> is usually that the top block has fallen out or that the few nodes
> with the
> block are never online at the same time as the person who wants to
> fetch
On Wednesday 22 April 2009 16:52:57 Robert Hailey wrote:
>
> On Apr 22, 2009, at 7:38 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 22 April 2009 02:09:21 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> >> So we get to the question, what a freenet contact is: A friend or an
> >> aquaintance.
> >>
> >> If you loo
Am Donnerstag 23 April 2009 09:25:15 schrieb xor:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: devl-bounces at freenetproject.org
> > [mailto:devl-bounces at freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of Arne
> > Babenhauserheide
> > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:14 AM
> > To: devl at freenetproject.org
> > Subj
On Wednesday 22 April 2009 18:53:48 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 22 April 2009 15:53:39 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
> > I don't understand why you want to run a jabber server. Surely announcing
> > to your jabber contacts that you are interested in ref exchange would be
> > sufficient,
Am Donnerstag, 23. April 2009 03:34:46 schrieb Ian Clarke:
> I propose "software" as an alternative to "node".
IMHO this is the wrong way. 'software' is to common...
Freenet is a network, running on top of 'internet' (currently only
on 'internet', but a WLAN transport plugin allows 'internet fr
Robert Hailey wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>
>> It has recently come to our attention that the problem with data
>> persistence
>> is usually that the top block has fallen out or that the few nodes
>> with the
>> block are never online at the same time as the p
On Apr 22, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> It has recently come to our attention that the problem with data
> persistence
> is usually that the top block has fallen out or that the few nodes
> with the
> block are never online at the same time as the person who wants to
> fetch
> -Original Message-
> From: devl-bounces at freenetproject.org
> [mailto:devl-bounces at freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of Arne
> Babenhauserheide
> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:14 AM
> To: devl at freenetproject.org
> Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Non-convergent encryption kills
> ea
Am Mittwoch 22 April 2009 18:26:05 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
> block [16:39:31] duplicating the top block can be done with SSKs
> very easily [16:39:40] but with CHKs it requires much longer URIs
> [16:39:43] is that a problem?
> [16:40:04] how much longer?
> [16:40:10] CHK@,, -> CHK@ key 1>,,
On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:05:40 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor wrote:
>
> > "Node" should really be replaced with "Client" *everywhere* because
> > client is the common word.
>
> Is it? When I talk to non-techies about a "client" they think I'm referring
> to the p
>
> The filename is ignored. This will make the Frost folk happy.
>
Now that DOES sound good. Especially if you consider that it is sometimes
difficult to restore the original filename, for example if someone uploaded
the file using Linux and the file name containes characters which are not
allowe
On Wednesday 15 April 2009 07:43:14 j16s...@freenetproject.org wrote:
> Author: j16sdiz
> Date: 2009-04-15 06:43:12 + (Wed, 15 Apr 2009)
> New Revision: 26829
>
> Modified:
>trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/fcp/FCPClient.java
> Log:
> revert r26828: req.cacnel() in removeAll() not work as ex
On Thursday 23 April 2009 14:36:37 xor wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: devl-boun...@freenetproject.org
> > [mailto:devl-boun...@freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Toseland
> > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:17 PM
> > To: supp...@freenetproject.org; Discussion of developm
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Thursday 23 April 2009 07:17:36 xor wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > The filename is ignored. This will make the Frost folk happy.
>> >
>> Now that DOES sound good. Especially if you consider that it is sometimes
>> difficult to restore the original
> -Original Message-
> From: devl-boun...@freenetproject.org
> [mailto:devl-boun...@freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Toseland
> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:17 PM
> To: supp...@freenetproject.org; Discussion of development issues
> Cc: Ian Clarke
> Subject: [freenet-dev] Sol
> -Original Message-
> From: arne_...@web.de [mailto:arne_...@web.de]
> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 11:21 AM
> To: devl@freenetproject.org
> Cc: xor
> Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Non-convergent encryption kills
> easy filesharing
>
> Am Donnerstag 23 April 2009 09:25:15 schrieb xor:
Anecdotal evidence suggests that right now at least one third of our content
persistence problems boil down to this one bug: "I added it 2 weeks ago and
it still hasn't got past 0% (0/1)". A new key type, DHKs (Duplicated Hash
Keys), would solve the problem, but the new keys would be twice as lo
> -Original Message-
> From: devl-boun...@freenetproject.org
> [mailto:devl-boun...@freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Toseland
> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 2:48 PM
> To: Discussion of development issues
> Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Easy top block duplication:
> ContentMultip
On Thursday 23 April 2009 09:37:45 Daniel Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
> > After a long conversation with p0s, I am fairly sure that our decision at
last
> > year's summit to use non-convergent encryption for splitfiles (i.e. a
> > different set of bl
On Thursday 23 April 2009 08:25:15 xor wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: devl-boun...@freenetproject.org
> > [mailto:devl-boun...@freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of Arne
> > Babenhauserheide
> > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:14 AM
> > To: devl@freenetproject.org
> > Subject: Re:
I would really appreciate input on option 2 i.e. how much of a problem are
long CHKs?
On Thursday 23 April 2009 03:03:00 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Argh, no, this doesn't work, because the pubkey is known, and there is no
way
> for the node to verify that the content is in fact valid. An attacke
On Thursday 23 April 2009 07:17:36 xor wrote:
>
> >
> > The filename is ignored. This will make the Frost folk happy.
> >
> Now that DOES sound good. Especially if you consider that it is sometimes
> difficult to restore the original filename, for example if someone uploaded
> the file using Linux
> The filename is ignored. This will make the Frost folk happy.
>
-- 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/20090423/2f28e9a3/attachment.pgp>
Am Donnerstag 23 April 2009 09:25:15 schrieb xor:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: devl-boun...@freenetproject.org
> > [mailto:devl-boun...@freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of Arne
> > Babenhauserheide
> > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:14 AM
> > To: devl@freenetproject.org
> > Subject: Re:
Am Donnerstag, 23. April 2009 03:34:46 schrieb Ian Clarke:
> I propose "software" as an alternative to "node".
IMHO this is the wrong way. 'software' is to common...
Freenet is a network, running on top of 'internet' (currently only
on 'internet', but a WLAN transport plugin allows 'internet fr
is the number of copies inserted)
>
> The filename is ignored. This will make the Frost folk happy.
>
-- 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/20090423/17fecba9/attachment.pgp>
e term "node" in the progress page, is likely
> to confuse newbies.
>
>
> "Node" should really be replaced with "Client" *everywhere* because client
> is the common word.
Client is what connects to a node, no?
-- next part --
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/20090423/ae581ad0/attachment.pgp>
ored. This will make the Frost folk happy.
-- 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/20090423/18abc534/attachment.pgp>
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> After a long conversation with p0s, I am fairly sure that our decision at last
> year's summit to use non-convergent encryption for splitfiles (i.e. a
> different set of blocks each time) in order to largely solve our security
> problems
> -Original Message-
> From: devl-boun...@freenetproject.org
> [mailto:devl-boun...@freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of Arne
> Babenhauserheide
> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 9:14 AM
> To: devl@freenetproject.org
> Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Non-convergent encryption kills
> easy files
Am Mittwoch 22 April 2009 18:26:05 schrieb Matthew Toseland:
> block [16:39:31] duplicating the top block can be done with SSKs
> very easily [16:39:40] but with CHKs it requires much longer URIs
> [16:39:43] is that a problem?
> [16:40:04] how much longer?
> [16:40:10] CHK@,, -> CHK@ key 1>,,
84 matches
Mail list logo
