The Grapevine Project
Stephen Blackheath
stephen@blacksapphire.com
Thu, 6 Dec 2001 13:04:21 +1300
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Wes,
Well! It's good to see such a large amount of technical scrutiny in such a
short space of time!
On Thu, 06 Dec 2001 12:41, Wes Felter wrote:
> On Wed, 2001-12-05 at 17:35, Stephen Blackheath wrote:
> > In terms of things you know, the routing is a cross between the
> > Content-Addressable Network and Freenet.
>
> Why do you prefer CAN-style routing over Chord? (just curious)
Several reasons, not necessarily to do with it being the best. Firstly, I
thought it up and later discovered it that CAN was similar. Second, my
scheme is pretty simple.
> Your design document says "the amount of resources used by the network
> depends on the amou
> nt of stuff that gets stored on it." Besides the
> obvious fact that a finite number of machines only have a finite amount
> of disk space, not allowing node owners to control disk usage seems a
> bit unfriendly, if that's really what Grapevine does.
You have been busy! Not only that, but you've gone right to a weakness of my
design. I've been carefully considering the difficulties of spreading
traffic evenly across the network, and equitable distribution of storage
space has taken a back seat.
However - the new "Karmic Debt #1" strategy (see the Design Notes page), ties
the storage burden more or less to traffic burden. That's better than the
original design, but could probably be improved.
> Wes Felter - wesley@felter.org - http://felter.org/wesley/
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to bluesky as: stephen@blacksapphire.com
> For list information visit http://www.transarc.ibm.com/~ota/bluesky/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8DrYF7I0ehz47OHERAllcAJ0XH9Tb7r1Ha8vB+xsG+Z5lD/0X3gCfa2cM
wOIvmu54D95HLBsO8gtCT0U=
=LYX8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----