[rc5] Tardy keyblocks

Sanford Olson sanford at msn.fullfeed.com
Tue Aug 26 14:43:20 EDT 1997


Amen!  Can we now drop this discussion?  Thanks! :)

- Sanford


At 01:29 PM 8/26/97 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
[snip]
>The argument has been made that random blocks should not be checked
>because tardy ones are available.  I submit that tardy blocks should not
>be checked because unassigned ones are available.  Of course people say
>"We won't prefer tardy blocks to unassigned ones, only to random ones..."
>
>However, there is no mechanism by which a tardy block could be transmitted
>to a client where it would not be equally effective to transmit an
>unassigned one.  If there is no net connection, neither can be transmitted
>(hence the need for random blocks), and if there is a connection, both can
>be transmitted.  The idea of saving tardy blocks for periods of no
>connection is no better than saving unassigned blocks for periods of no
>connection.
[snip]
----
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo at llamas.net with 'unsubscribe rc5' in the body.



More information about the rc5 mailing list