Re: [Gzz] hemppah's research problems document

[B. Fallenstein]

Tuomas Lukka wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 08:37:49PM +0100, B. Fallenstein wrote:
>
> > Tuomas Lukka wrote:
> >
> > > No, this is still somewhat missing the point.
> > >
> > > Ok, I want to say I want all RFCs to always be on my machine so that if I 
> > > go out
> > > with the laptop I have them there.
> > >
> > > Some systems, such as DHTs cannot let other people use this "mirror" 
> > > because
> > > the files are not in the location the DHT would place them in.
> > >
> > > So if we think about a 5GB / 100MB split between my mirrored data / DHT 
> > > area (which is quite reasonable), most of the potential capacity in the 
> > > network
> > > is not getting used!
> >
> > I don't understand at all. As I have been so adamant about in my
> > statements to hemppah, the DHT is for *locating* the data in the
> > network. 
>
>
> No, that raises entirely different set of issues.

An entirely different set of issues than what?

> > Your machine would, when going online, place into the DHT
> > mappings (blockid -> your-ip-address), so if any computer tries to
> > download the RFCs, they would in the DHT get your machine's address, and
> > then contact your machine to download from there. 
>
> The problem is that this puts in more steps to the algorithm and makes it 
> MUCH more vulnerable to attacks: simply placing bogus data will be a pretty
> good attack.

More vulnerable to attacks than what?

Are you *seriously* suggesting that the DHT should store the actual blocks?

- Benja, confused