pukkamustard schreef op wo 02-02-2022 om 12:42 [+0000]:
> > (Afterwards, the client should insert the block(s) back into
> > IPFS/GNUnet/whatever, maybe using this proposed ‘in-file block
> > store’
> > such that other clients (using the same DHT mechanism) can
> > benefit.)
> 
> It might make sense for some clients to make content available to
> other
> clients and to go trough the extra effort of putting blocks back into
> IPFS/GNUNet/whatever. But this should be optional. Maybe we can call
> such clients "caching peers"?
> 
> IMO A client should by default only deal with things that are
> strictly
> necessary for getting substitutes. The substistute servers (and
> caching
> peers) should make sure substitutes are available to clients, whether
> over IPFS/GNUNet/whatever or plain old HTTP.

If re-inserting missing blocks back into the IPFS/GNUnet/whatever is
made optional and is off by default, then almost nobody will enable the
‘caching peer’ option and we will have freeloaders, somewhat defeating
the point of GNUnet/whatever.

In a classic setting (‘plain old HTTP’), serving and downloading is a
separate thing.  But in a P2P setting, downloading cannot be separated
from uploading -- strictly speaking, a peer might be able to download
without uploading (depending on the P2P system), but that's anti-
social, not something that should be done by default.

However, if re-inserting missing blocks is _on_ by default, then there
doesn't seem to be any trouble.

Greetings,
Maxime.