-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > You are right here when you are talking about a network where each node knows > about every other node (or at least is "near" every other node). However, I > see this as being less and less true as freenet > grows up. Like a said before, as each node references less of a proportion of > the freenet, the more diversly this information will be spread. Sure, there > will be popular keyword streams but they will > be somewhat local. Also, the data requests will get satisifed early in the > nodes that have overlapping insert streams so the request load will pool in a > ring around the *the best* IP match for a > keyword hash. Not as I understand it. True, a node doesn't know about the entire network, but the idea is that within a few hops, one can traverse the entire network, so though you don't know all the nodes, your request will cover the entire network. Its a 6-degrees-of-separation sort of thing.
> Ummm... storing and routing are two completely different things to me. > Currently both things are done by the KHK but in the future this is likely to > change. As has been stated by many people in the > past, the ideal future development will bring both concepts (KHKs and CHKs) > in where they are most appropriate since each have their benefits. No, they aren't. Storing is a reverse routing of a key, pushing the data out along what would be a request path. > > Inserting your data under a random number hashed up will also distribute your > data nicely (even if the data is exactly the same) however this does nothing > to help searching for it (just like routing > via CHKs). Yes, this is true. But this assumes you have a secondary way of finding CHK's, eg links in documents, a search mechanism, etc. > Nor will any one find them unless there are references inserted under some > guessable, indexable or searchable key strategy. Distribution of files is at > issue ... it is the finding them later that we > need some method for. And I have yet to hear a solid argument against hashed > keywords that cannot be simply (and, from my estimates, sucessfully) > circumvented. Am I out to lunch on this or am I making > any sense to people? Not true, for above reasons. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE4/zi2pXyM95IyRhURAovOAJ9/6ZDLB8FNBble/nssyA1rAAc4hwCgzMk9 KR6bT7Uo9pVnTofDW1Jg4Gc= =tthE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
