[Sks-devel] Separate P2P Protocol Should Be Developed

[oakwhiz]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

I'm looking into it... at this point, any keyserver that I write would
be purely experimental, and would probably consist of either a layer
on an existing P2P system (i.e. BitTorrent) or a fork of an existing
open source project. My hands are full with other projects at the
moment, though, so it will be a little while before I actually try
something.

- -oakwhiz.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=aM5z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Robert J. Hansen <address@hidden> wrote:
>> I'm starting to think that a non-reconciliation keyserver protocol should be 
>> developed separately from SKS. This will allow the robustness of SKS to 
>> coexist with the convenience of traditional peer-to-peer networks where 
>> nodes with lower redundancy are constantly being added and removed.
>>
>
> This is one of those things that is far, far easier said than done.  Yaron 
> Minsky wrote the SKS algorithms as part of his doctoral thesis in computer 
> science: that should give you an idea of the amount of work involved.
>
> If you wish to pursue this I wish you well and I'd be happy to point you to 
> some good academic references, but in my experience when people talk about 
> how something "should be done," that usually means "I want someone else to do 
> it for me."
>
> This is Free Software.  If you think it should be done -- do it, and I wish 
> you well!
>
>
>