>This is a great idea, but I see one problem. What if a malicious node >just responds quickly but "trickles" the data at something like 10 >bytes/minute? Should transfer speed also be taken into consideration >with this algorithm? I could see a node serving up dozens of >connections over a dialup link because of low latency (even though the >bandwidth is low), while a satellite broadband user would be more latent >but get the actual data to the node quicker. A low-latency 0.5 k/sec >connection would get you a 1 MB SplitFile block much slower than a >high-latency 10k/sec connection.
what about basic pcache not on "first response time" (latency) but on "transfer speed" (ticker started when key is requested and stopped when the last byte of the requested key is tranferred, resulting into a bytes/sec value, just like on the splitfile information pane) ? in fact, everything what's important is the time needed to have this key on our side, not the latency or other things, so it would make sense to actually respect that value ;) _______________________________________________ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
