Re: Back to Merkle Hash Trees...
Olaf van der Spek <[email protected]> Mon, 07 Feb 2005 01:31:54 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.bit-torrent.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Elliott Mitchell wrote: >>From: Olaf van der Spek <[email protected]> >>Elliott Mitchell wrote: >> >>>>From: Olaf van der Spek <[email protected]> >>>>Elliott Mitchell wrote: > > >>>one hash at a time you've generated thousands of extra protocol messages. >>>Given this you're likely to transfer blocks of hashes, at which point >>>blocks of hashes will likely be of similar size to payload blocks. >> >>But with a different block/field/message type. > > > My ideas have been otherwise, simply handling blocks of hashes as any > other block of data. Pointing to payload versus internal nodes implicitly > via their indicies, but otherwise identical to any other data. My > thoughts have also not been constrained by thinking of "THEX", so I may > of been exploring cases that didn't occur in your scenarios. Maybe. > Having said that I think my ideas have solidified sufficiently that I may > write them up in both code and spec form soon. At which point it will be > time to see whose ideas get shot down. > > >>>>It should be clear from the protocol. >>> >>> >>>Which is another reason I dislike THEX. The type is a protocol issue, not >>>a standards issue. You might settle on markers similar THEX, at which >>>point you've got to try both markers to distinguish the types. >> >>Why can't you add both the markers and something else? > > > Inefficiency. If one fails is there any reason to believe the other will > survive? In Cryptography adding a constant payload is a big no-no, as it Doesn't that apply only to encryption and not to secure hashing? > aids cryptanalysis. As lower levels (TCP) will take care of errors, why > add redundancy at the application layer? Maybe because the TCP checksum isn't (very) strong. >>>>If not, an internal node is 21 or 41 bytes (IIRC), so your 16 kbyte >>>>block would not be an internal node. >>> >>> >>>And a payload block can't be of this size? (notably the EOF) >>> >>>You're still assuming transfer of one hash at a time, which is worthless >> >>Am I? > > > Time for those write-ups. I doubt those are gonna say anything about my assumptions. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BitTorrent/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/