Ah, good idea. Using a method like that in SET, redundancy is avoided and bandwidth on the recipient could be saved. Now I realize such a method have good potential: either to enhance downloading or to save bandwidth resouce for rsync.
But, I think a central index server is critical in SET, which holds all the fingerprints? That would be a potential vulnerability. He Yuan -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alen Peacock Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 4:24 AM To: theory and practice of decentralized computer networks Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] Computer scientists develop P2P system thatpromises faster music, movie downloads On 4/12/07, Justin Chapweske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The major use case for this seems to be where multiple people upload > fairly similar versions of the same file. This approach might be > interesting technically, but I don't think this is useful for many > real-world use cases beyond piracy. Actually, there are *plenty* of use cases beyond illicit file-sharing. I'll give you one: In the realm of remote data backup, this is *highly* useful, because people often move files around, rename them, make extra local copies, etc. None of that will be optimized away by rsync (each copy and rename has to be uploaded from scratch), but virtually all can be detected with a SET-like approach. Of course, people also tend to email work documents around to each other, and each recipient also might save the file and back it up, and then the savings that an approach like this brings really start to show. Alen http://www.flud.org _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
