-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
>
> > I'm inclined to think that the simplest solution is the best. That is to
> > say the one that divides the _appearance_ of the different content
> > addressing types as little as possible. We should also keep in mind the
> > chances of a collison are equal to 1 in 2 to the size of the hash we are
> > using, i.e. pretty damned remote.
>
> I am confused as to whether you are supporting or disagreeing with my
> comments. :-)
disagreeing. Sorry. :)
> You have a good point about the remoteness of collision. The system
> assumes no collisions will occur. However, if we keep dividing our key
> space into smaller and smaller subsections, collisions become more
> likely. They will still be very unlikely, of course.
Oh yes. I tend to think that it should be *impossible* to have
collisions. Thats why I like appending a type to the end. That way there
are no two messages with the same ID, even if they are of a different
type.
> > If we store different types in different tables and access them with
> different messages, then the chance of key collision stays the same as we
> increase the number of message types.
Ewww.. tables bad. Don't like 'em. The more homogenous the server is
the better, imho.
Scott
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE5AUkypXyM95IyRhURAimgAJ4yyX1RgV1FjKcKEXmqWnqupY/ptACdFHuI
/csCRsbLXn5J7NgeS95rUIo=
=XLwL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
