Re: Back to Merkle Hash Trees...

Konstantin 'Kosta' Welke wrote:
> The other extreme tree construction favors a binary tree. Here, a piece
> has log2(piece count) ancestors, which each have one sister, so it only
> needs a fraction (something around O(log2(piece count))) of the tree. On
> the other hand, the *total* overhead is bigger, because you have
> much more leaves (around O(n) iirc).

A properly implemented scheme based on binary merkle trees has about the 
same network overhead as a BT1-like scheme with the same granularity.


 
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/