RE: [Blocks-development] Reducing broadcast messages to ~5bytes

[Blat F. <pet...@ho...>]

>From: "Erik Moeller" <mo...@sc...>
>To: blo...@li...
>Subject: Re: [Blocks-development] Reducing broadcast messages to ~5bytes
>Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 18:01:30 +0200
>
>On 18 Aug 2000, at 14:06, Blat Froop wrote:
>
> > Comments?
>
>Good idea, but remember that broadcasts will get more payload in the
>future (keys, digital signatures, nicknames, ratings). So the ID of
>the advert would have to be a hash of this additional data as well.
>
>Regards,
>Erik

As long as the advert ID is unique for that advert Im not sure that
the rest matters. If the other info changes (other than routing
info) it is a new advert and should have a new ID. Author key,
signature, nick, etc... should always be static. Ratings are
another issue though and probably need more thought.

>From: "Spencer Jr., Michael" <sp...@ac...>
>To: "'Erik Moeller'" <mo...@sc...>,        
>blo...@li...
>Subject: RE: [Blocks-development] Reducing broadcast messages to ~5bytes
>Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 11:21:11 -0500
>
>Hmm...after thinking about this more closely...
>
>it takes 4 bits to transmit one routing table hop.  A four-hop route would
>take two bytes.

Thats for a 16 connections per node Blocknet. Im still playing with
the idea of using less/more connections (and yes, > 16 does have
some real benefits... reducing hops, more resilient to outages
etc :-)

>
>So if those two bytes are unique to the routing table, the other three 
>bytes
>would have to be unique to the file.

I was thinking of...

byte0 => message type 'A' (or whatever)
byte1 => bits 31-24 of advert ID
byte2 => bits 23-16 of advert ID
byte3 => bits 15-8  of advert ID
byte4 => bits  7-0  of advert ID


>
>Can we reasonably assume that 3 bytes can identify all the files on the
>network 'uniquely enough'?  Hash collisions will cause some files to 
>inhibit
>the spread of other files...

All we have to worry about is if 4 bytes is enough to identify
an new advert from the ones transmitted within the
last ~5 minutes.

>
>Perhaps the extra information, keys, signatures, ratings, whatever...could
>be passed as separate messages.  "I have a new signature for that file you
>already know about" "I have a new route for that file you already know
>about"...
>
>
>On an unrelated note, I would like to start creating and testing that
>web-of-trust thing soon.  If there are any interested people out there who
>would like to download, learn, and use the command-line GPG binary for 
>their
>favorite OS...and follow along in a HOWTO to use the web-of-trust, slowly
>and by hand...please email me at m...@ms....  I'll need testers.  :)

I want to try and get on a bit with V0.16. Ive got big files working,
but need to upgrade the caching logic and get sticky files working.
But the WoT offers hope in some pretty hopeless areas, so keep
me posted. Perhaps I can help out directly when things get a bit
further advanced?

ttfn

PG.

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com