Re: [Help-gnunet] Major problems on RH7.2

[I. Wronsky]

On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Christian Grothoff wrote:

> You're right. Here's my CVS log that should fix the problem:

Wow. Amazingly fast action, thanks. The current CVS version 
seems to fix this one.

> Could it be that you *ever* deleted your hostkey and generated a
> second key? It looks to me very much like the obvious issue that
> you may have two public keys known to GNUnet for the same
> host and port. Did you see the message 'generating session key'
> more than once? 

Yes, this is it - while tracking the first problem I 
deleted .gnunet directory and started from scratch. Perhaps
a small note of this in the readme or faq would be helpful
to us newbies. Something like "don't do that because..." ;)

> Hostkeys will eventually expire and be purged from GNUnet, though this can 
> take a while, especially since we're currently using fairly long lived keys 
> because there are not so many hosts anyway. 

This reminds me that the "hosts.tar.gz" contains addresses like
127.0.0.1 and 192.168.0.1, which probably shouldn't be there.
The first makes gnunetd send messages to itself (the only
harm in this is extra debug output? or does it end up in
some kind of a loop?) and the second seems harmless on my
system. Anyway, most of the hosts on the list are not
responding, which might be one reason why I can insert a 
file on one node, but not retrieve it on another or find 
it with a nonlocal keyword search. Or the problem might be 
elsewhere, atleast sometimes the node queries itself at 
127.0.0.1 because its one of the few nodes that responds...

The 127.0.0.1 hostkeys seem to be atleast (theres several)

3DAEBEBECBAA9E5DA53B986A0F12BCE213C5FC00
44049CF7BCEA3533E87C95060AC17F4D7BB9408C
63367A4282308906371C803329C404C11A69E3EE
6598B7487CD4B5954668983437F015AAC735AA38
A11E2B776B076CE84473D363ACFF1171FF43B6D4

Perhaps there should be some automatic mechanism 
to skip/discard these ...?

> We are, in fact, developing under RH 7.1/7.2 and SuSE (ok, and somebody under 
> *BSD). 

Ok, ok. ;) Sorry. I presumed too much from the situation
that it wasn't working 100% and the academic papers gave a 
whiff of forgotten unix mainframes... ;) ;)

> > I hope gnunet will not end up in the same limbo. ;)
> I absolutly agree with your concerns. If you have any further problems, 
> please report & we'll do our best to fix them. :-)

Do I sense sarcasm? ;) Anyway, I really hope that gnunet
will succeed and so I will keep my thumbs up - with the
problems anonymous p2p-systems are having, I guess all 
that is needed is that some of them starts to provide 
promising, solid basic operations. The open source community 
will most likely take it from there, once people can be sure 
"which horse to bet on". Atleast I personally find it hard 
to commit to any project before knowing whether they have 
a future, and as there is no "empiric" proof of working 
and scalable anonymous p2p, one can't be sure if it 
can be done in a way some particular project is trying
to do it, and getting familiar with their enormous
codebase (for example freenet has reinvented probably
every possible wheel) in order to contribute is a 
high overhead. I think lots of people may feel the same.

End of lecture. Good luck. :-)