On Monday 03 November 2003 09:11 pm, Toad wrote: > On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 07:58:56PM -0600, Tom Kaitchuck wrote: > > On Monday 03 November 2003 06:16 pm, Toad wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 02:35:57AM -0600, Tom Kaitchuck wrote: > > > > Cancer nodes currently pose a serious threat to the network. However > > > > stopping them is not simple, especially an anti-specialization > > > > attack, as discussed previously. My previously proposed solution > > > > would not work, because someone could find a hash that works and then > > > > start subtracting values until they find XXX. Toad pointed this out > > > > as a problem with SSKs, but it is a problem with CHKs too. > > > > > > No it isn't, because XXX depends on the hash of the content on a CHK. > > > I'll look at the rest of your suggestions later... > > > > The node that is requesting the data does not know the content of the > > data unless it gets it. One could start hashing values until one finds > > one that > > It does however know the hash of the content. XXX is some complex > function involving breaking a hash of the routing key, which for a CHK > would be the hash of the content, and for an SSK would be something > else. > > > matches the hash they want to route with. Then they start subtracting > > numbers from that until they find one who's last few bit match the one > > they just found. They use the second number as the the hash and the > > number they subtracted as the XXX. Anyway this is a moot point, as my new > > proposal solves this problem. > > Your new proposal looks pretty drastic, and I don't understand the > problem you suggest is the main reason for it.
I meant my new proposal for how hash-cache should work. It just involves doing one more hash. No big deal. _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
