Re: [decentralization] RE: p2p working group/standards
- Lucas Gonze wrote:
> Are you seriously suggesting that decentralized lookups are only for staticI don't get the impression that that's what he was suggesting at all.
> resources, Clay?
> Think of a CPU sharing app that sends out a message saying "I need a node that
> already has foo applet installed". Popular Power might do this, for example.
> Decentralized service discovery is a practical need.
It appears that the discussion is becoming centralized peer discovery vs.
completely decentralized discovery. Neither is optimal. If they were we'd
all be using one or the other. The question is: in what circumstances is one
preferable to the other?
To extend your example above I'd suggest to you that the machine needing the
help would benefit from a centralized directory of available machines who
have extra cycles to spare. If part of the information in the directory was
the processing capabilities of the machine and what they were charging for
those cycles (yeah, yeah, theoretical perfect payment system) then a quick
search would allow the requesting machine the ability to quickly target its
- Justin Chapweske said:
> ... switch to SHA-1.Probably going to SHA-1 isn't too big of a problem. I'll bring it up with
> The biggest group that I havn't yet talked to about this is the Gnutella
> guys, but I'm sure they'd be into it as well. Any Gnutellians on the
those that I know. Interestingly, there are ways to add file hashes within
the existing protocol specifications - it should even be backwards