Re: [Gzz] Bummer

[Benja Fallenstein]

Tuomas Lukka wrote:
> > Realization I just had: Of course, a distributed hashtable used with Gzz 
> > should not only be able to store *peers* that host a given block (as in, 
> > the peer hosting the block tells the DHT so), but also *regular HTTP 
> > servers* (as in, a peer tells the DHT, "I know that block X/the body of 
> > block X can be downloaded at URL Y).
>
>
> AAAAAAAAAAAAGH! YES!
>
> Absolutely. This puts things really nicely together.
>
>
> > For files that cannot be deeply linked, we can still have a reference 
> > saying, 'you can download that block if you go to this web page,' though 
> > this would need to be coupled with some way to assert credibility, 
> > otherwise you could confuse people by directing them to arbitrary pages.
>
> That's true for the above as well; you could otherwise DDOS someone
> by putting their server down for all blocks in the known universe.

I know, but the difference is that this doesn't become an issue before 
we have an actual network with >100 nodes, whereas the confusion attack 
even works with e.g. three-node networks...

Of course, since we'll initially have networks where everybody knows 
each other, we don't need to have a solution for this right off either.

-b.