1) CHK-keys are already long enough 2) why add something that tries to fix something broken (routing?) or contradicts the concept (caching of keys around the key location; unused content gets dropped)
if a) unwanted content is supposed to be dropped from the network to make space for fresh stuff and b) the top key is *needed* for *every* request of a ((larger) split-) file, how can the top key possibly fall off the network? IMHO I think this is making extra effort and adding YetJustAnotherKeyType for CreateAWorkaroundForSomethingDifferent for something that needs to be addressed elsewhere Matthew Toseland wrote: > Anecdotal evidence suggests that right now at least one third of our content > persistence problems boil down to this one bug: "I added it 2 weeks ago and > it still hasn't got past 0% (0/1)". A new key type, DHKs (Duplicated Hash > Keys), would solve the problem, but the new keys would be twice as long as > current CHKs. Is this a problem? I would really appreciate input from users, > particularly those who upload and download files: > - Is it a problem for the keys to be really long (twice as long as current > CHKs)? CHKs are copied and pasted, so maybe not a problem? > - Is it true that a great many downloads get stuck at 0% for a long time, > showing 0 blocks of 1 if you mouseover the percentage? > > Example: > CHK at > 4~2FTXtBE2So8NZZIzneYrn5SOaFFk-hQsvjBHLc77A,97XjJekfSl8HxkJFYhj4cdo9n7s0exhE-EWMr8zuVxM,AAIC--8/chaosradio_142.mp3 > > -> (something like) > > DHK at > 97XjJekfSl8HxkJFYhj4cdo9n7s0exhE-EWMr8zuVxM,4~2FTXtBE2So8NZZIzneYrn5SOaFFk-hQsvjBHLc77A,ughDyCjP0jeBuRRx33nULUb4Pl-6Dk9DrDrH1miXCj0,VIOAKDzD~YIzrD5NBbD3v5SxOiwYXg84qQYdbkJA3bo,AAIC--8/chaosradio_142.mp3 > > GORY DETAILS: > > Currently we use: > CHK@<routing key>,<crypto key>,<extra> > > (Filenames afterwards are manifests, and therefore impact on the CHK) > > The new key type would be: > > DHK@<data hash>,<routing key 1>,<routing key 2>,<routing key > 3>,<extra>/<ignore filename> > > (A filename is mandatory, and is always ignored, so does not impact on the > rest of the key). > > We might allow any number of routing keys from 2 upwards, for more redundancy > at the cost of a longer URI, but IMHO 3 is a good default number. > > You would get such a key when you insert a file as DHK at . > > Arguably nobody ever types CHKs even now, and copy and paste allows for > fairly > long keys. Thoughts? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Support mailing list > Support at freenetproject.org > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support > Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support > Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
