From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark H Weaver Subject: Re: [GSoC] GNUnet binary distribution system Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:29:53 -0400 Message-ID: <87siqo8u72.fsf@yeeloong.lan> References: <531E0776.3090705@rigelk.eu> <87a9cxkbg3.fsf@gnu.org> <531E4894.7080103@rigelk.eu> <87a9cxif0w.fsf@yeeloong.lan> <531EB467.408@rigelk.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <531EB467.408@rigelk.eu> (Pierre-Antoine Rault's message of "Tue, 11 Mar 2014 07:59:51 +0100") List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gnunet-developers-bounces+gnu-gnunet-developers=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: gnunet-developers-bounces+gnu-gnunet-developers=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Pierre-Antoine Rault Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , gnunet-developers@gnu.org List-Id: guix-devel.gnu.org Pierre-Antoine Rault writes: > On 11/03/2014 04:35, Mark H Weaver wrote: >> FWIW, I think it might be worthwhile to support BitTorrent magnet >> links as well, as a middle ground between these two extremes. Most >> users will not be able to host binaries via HTTP; even if they have >> a server, the bandwidth requirements are hard to predict and likely >> to be too high. > > I'm not sure to understand why you precise "BitTorrent" magnet links. > Magnet is a de-facto standard that is independant from BitTorrent [3] > [4], I specified "BitTorrent" because it would presumably simplify our implementation to support only one protocol. > and using BitTorrent in our case wouldn't have better performance > than GNUnet's MESH. Okay. My suggestion was based on a guess that GNUnet's more ambitious goals (e.g. providing anonymity) would entail a significant performance cost compared with BitTorrent. If that's not the case, then I see no reason to use BitTorrent. I'd certainly prefer to support GNUnet. Thanks, Mark