Various identifier choices Re: [p2p-hackers] Morpheus, Freenet, MojoNation (was Semantic Routing BOF)

Gordon Mohr gojomo at
Tue Sep 4 11:47:01 UTC 2001

Oskar Sandberg writes:
> I considered if the way of calculating UID values from data might
> actually be an area where we should be trying to "interoperate" between
> the different networks, but I figure that even there the emphasis is
> too different for it be worth it.

With Bitzi, we don't mind a proliferation of identifiers, because
we aim to provide, as metadata, alternate names/IDs for catalogued

So for example you'll eventually be able to pull from the Bitzi
catalog a record like...

  Bitprint (SHA1+TigerTree)
  \_ Freenet-CHK
  \_ MojoID
  \_ MD5
  \_ etc. (KazaaID? SHA256?)

...whenever users have contriibuted such associations.

(Of course, users could lie, but since all these identifiers are
calculable from the content itself, the worst that can happen
is the inconvenience of fetching the wrong file once, at which 
point the problem can be detected and reported back to Bitzi
for correction.)

And in a separate message:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 01:15:43PM -0700, Gordon Mohr wrote:
> > Yes. I prefer a tree hash for that purpose, as it allows 
> > out-of-order subsegment verification, but the progressive 
> > hash works too.
> There is obviously no need for out-of-order verfication on a stream that
> needs to be tunneled.

I would say that it is obviously beneficial to avoid designing-in 
a permanent assumption of streamed, in-order, complete delivery. 

Might it not be nice, someday, to tunnel different segments from 
different places, simultaneously or spread across time periods,
for lots of reasons -- not least of which being performance and
resistance to traffic analysis?

- Gojomo

More information about the P2p-hackers mailing list