Re: Back to Merkle Hash Trees...
Your Local Negotiator <[email protected]> Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:11:49 -0800 (PST)
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.bit-torrent.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
hey, what the fuck? --- Elliott Mitchell <[email protected]> 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. > > 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 > aids cryptanalysis. As lower levels (TCP) will take > care of errors, why > add redundancy at the application layer? > > > >>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. > > > -- > (\___(\___(\______ --=> 8-) EHM <=-- > ______/)___/)___/) > \ ( | [email protected] PGP > 8881EF59 | ) / > \_ \ | _____ -O #include <stddisclaimer.h> O- > _____ | / _/ > \___\_|_/82 04 A1 3C C7 B1 37 2A*E3 6E 84 DA 97 > 4C 40 E6\_|_/___/ > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com 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/