[GNUnet-SVN] r25159 - gnunet-java

[gnunet]

Author: dold
Date: 2012-11-29 10:17:06 +0100 (Thu, 29 Nov 2012)
New Revision: 25159

Modified:
   gnunet-java/ISSUES
Log:
issues


Modified: gnunet-java/ISSUES
===================================================================
--- gnunet-java/ISSUES  2012-11-29 09:07:39 UTC (rev 25158)
+++ gnunet-java/ISSUES  2012-11-29 09:17:06 UTC (rev 25159)
@@ -268,3 +268,38 @@
  * according to "Stumbling over consensus research: Misunderstandings and 
issues" 
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/people/aguilera/stumbling-chapter.pdf
    it is often misunderstood / does not matter that much in practice
 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+* the strata estimator's "inspitarion:: 
http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/~cheung/papers/StreamDB/Probab/1985-Flajolet-Probabilistic-counting.pdf
+ * maybe we can apply the same analysis techniques?
+
+* what about byte order and hashcode?
+
+* what happens if only one local client wants to conclude, and another still 
sends values?  when is a peer concluding?
+ * when all its clients want to conclude? when one wants to conclude?
+ * for voting, multiple clients on one authority does not really make sens, 
does it?
+ * we could treat client as (peer_id, cli_id), but wouldn't that be too 
complicated / unncecessary?
+
+* stumbling block: why does TESTING_start_peer's config need the [autostart] 
section with DEFAULTSERVICES
+  to start core, but consensus service is started? how does arm know it should 
start consensus, but does not start core, even with AUTOSTART=YES?
+
+* would use / tried to use notification ctx, but there's no way to kill a 
client once it's in a context without killing the whole context.
+
+* how do i get the local peer's peer identity?
+ * core? => done
+
+* are duplicate elements allowed to be passed to the new element callback? or 
should we guarantee that every distinct element only gets passed once?
+ * duplicate-freeness is hard to guarantee, assume client sents value to 
service, at the same time service receives the same value over the network
+   and sends it to the client
+ * => just allow duplicates, but try to minimize them in an efficient 
implementation
+
+* quite general question: what prevents a peer from just sending huge amounts 
of data / invalid ballots?
+
+* i don't get why multihashmap is implemented the way it is. Am I right that 
it does actually only use 4 byte (unsigned int) of the 16-bit hash?
+  is sha-2 really a great hash function for this?
+ * I guess this is for historical reasons (to assoc. data with peers) but got 
used for other purposes?
+
+* have been looking at GNUNET_BloomFilter. Should IBF also be implemented with 
on-disk structures?
+
+* hash functions. what hash functions should the IBF use?
+