Re: [GNUnet-developers] Re: Other way to updateable content

[Tom Barnes-Lawrence]

Hmm, to follow up on what I'd been saying yesterday...

On Fri, Jan 31, I myself wrote:
 <snip>
>  Now I see that the latest flaw I spotted (a node has incentive to store
> all versions of a rewritable block, and always return the earliest possible
> version that matches the "greater-than" query) appears to have been
> addressed in those emails I missed- though I'm not sure how the timestamps
> (where the user is required to sort of guess that maybe the timestamp
> corresponds to when the author had said they'd make the next update)
> helps to prevent this abuse, nor why a cheating node could only cheat
> once.

 Now, dwelling further on the timestamp thing earlier today, it slowly
dawned on me:

 When you were saying "timestamp", which to me and probably many others,
implies "the time that this thing was created or modified", is it
at all possible that you actually meant an *expiry-date* for the block?

Because that seems entirely workable to me (well, unless you put up
the next version before the previous one expires and the newer version
expires later than the older one).

Tom Barnes-Lawrence