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-----