> This makes a lot of sense if you think about the equilibrium situation
> we want to achieve, where no node in the routing table is allowed to
> have a ridiculously large number of refs (i.e., be an ubernode). It's
> also an elegant way to address the "honest cancer" attack, where a node
> resets the DataSource to itself more than it should to attract refs.
>
> I've mentioned this to a couple people and the general reaction is that
> the approach is "too strong." Maybe so. One compromise would be to
> only drop the "top dog" if the number of refs owned by that node exceeds
> maxRefs/maxNodes.
I agree that it may be too strong. Perhaps you should drop it if it
exceeds some percentage of the total number of refs. I do like the
'deleting from the top end' though.
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
