great idea. I wonder where you got this from *cough*OFFSystem*cough* http://offsystem.sourceforge.net/
Donald Buczek wrote: > I'm not really into freenet yet, anyway I'd like to ask your comments on > this idea of mine: > > If I understand things correctly: > > Currently, if you can read the data stored on a node, you can tell, > whether is contains data you know the hash of. So node owners may get in > trouble, because they can be proven to posses certain data. The > possession itself might be illegal or lead to oppression, even if the > owner can not really be proven to have knowledge of the data or to have > requested it. > > Whatever, it would be much better, if a stolen data store would not > reveal its content. > > My idea how this could possibly done is this: > > Whenever some new data has to be inserted into the network, first > another chunk already in the network (in the nodes cache) is randomly > chosen and the new data is XORed with the old chunk producing a new > chunk. This new one is stored in the network. The information published > to retrieve the data is a pair of hashes to the old and the new chunk. A > client needs to retrieve both chunks to rebuild the data. (so requiring > up to doubled time and bandwidth, but not doubles storage) > > Whats is the point? The Point is, that possession of a chunk in the > datastore is not related to just the single file, the bad guys might > know about, but it might be related to many other data as well, the bad > guys don't know about or don't have problems with. > > You see: CHUNK1,CHUNK2 might combine to a problematic piece of data. > But CHUNK1 and CHUNK3 combine to some other data. So do CHUNK2 and > CHUNK4. So, possession of CHUNK1 and CHUNK2 does not prove, that the > problematic data has been produced or that the owner knows anything > about the fact, that they could be combined. CHUNK1 and CHUNK2 might > have been stored to serve some other data, even if other related chunks > can no longer be found in the cache, because they were displaced. All > chunks are just random data, they can be XORed to generate just > anything. The "poison", the difference between good or bad, is only in > the references, not in the data itself. > > I think, when existing chunks are chosen as partners for new data from > the inserting nodes cache, chunks will cluster together in different > contexts. If two chunks are "near" to each other, because they were > needed together to build one set of data, they will likely be used > together again to build new sets of data. So later its quite likely to > have CHUNK1 and CHUNK2 together in the cache for multiple sets of data. > > Is this understandable at all? What do you think? > > Sincerely > D. Buczek > >
