> 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 Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
