I don't see what the big deal is with incremental verification. With CHK trees, as long as the CHKs validate, you have incremenetal validation.
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 05:11:00PM +0100, Michael Rogers wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > > >So is the idea that you request a whole file, or a block? > > > The idea is that you can choose. I'm trying to come up with a standard > ID format that covers both approaches, so that files published with one > approach (maybe on Freenet) can link to files published with the other > approach (maybe on I2P). > > Here's how I see the tradeoff: with CHK trees, intermediate nodes can't > see the structure of the tree - every block appears independent. This > conceals the size of the file, but requires one insert message, one > request message, and one cache entry per block. With hash trees, > intermediate nodes can see the structure of the tree - only the data > blocks (the bottom layer of the tree) are encrypted. This reveals the > size of the file, but allows incremental verification, so you only need > one insert message, one request message, and one cache entry per file. > > I suppose you could pad the file to the nearest power of 2... it would > still use less bandwidth than one request per block. > > Cheers, > Michael > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20051007/0777d332/attachment.pgp>
