On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 06:38:58PM +0100, Thomas Leske wrote: > The argument against updateable keys was, that they would allow > to forcibly remove content from the network. But this is not > the case, if only the sequence number is updateable and the update > of the real data is just emulated. No, this is not the problem preventing updatable SSKs. > > The keys for the real data are like those used for edition based > freesites: > SSK@.../foobar-1// > SSK@.../foobar-2// > ... > > The problem is, to find the current version. > It would be better to have a static key like: > SSK@.../foobar// > > This retrieves a new kind of redirect to the key "SSK@.../foobar-" > followed by the number, that is found under a certain updateable key, > and "//". (You could implement ARKs the same way.) > > The updateable key is determined by a public key. > Valid contents are: a positive integer number and a signature for > that number. For the number 0 the signature is omitted. > Contents with higher numbers are more current than those with lower > numbers. > > Requests and inserts are not distinguished. They contain the > following Data: > public key > number with signature > > The reply contains: > the same or a higher number with signature > > How a node handles a request/insert: > 1) Determine whether the signature is valid (except for the number 0). > 2) Replace the old data and the old data source, if the number is higher. > 3) If it was, then ignore the failure table. > 4) Propagate the request/insert: > - for each reply, execute steps 1 and 2 Requests would have to always go the full hops to live. This makes them slow, and introduces huge overhead relative to edition based sites. > 5) Send the reply > 6) If a higher value than the one in the request was returned, > then count that as a use of the data. > (Increase popularity of the data in the data store.) > > The first routing step must be random, in order to avoid that requests > get stuck at the same evil nodes over and over again, that always > return outdated numbers. > > There is no overhead compared to conventional edition based freesites, > because the authors can save the image link to the next edition. > > What do you think about that? How do you ensure that all nodes find out about an update? > > > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech >
-- Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet/Coldstore open source hacker. Employed full time by Freenet Project Inc. from 11/9/02 to 11/11/02. http://freenetproject.org/
msg00995/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
