[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:
>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
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo at llamas.net with 'unsubscribe rc5' in the body.

More information about the rc5 mailing list