Scott Brickner writes:
We've identified several forms of "real-world retaliation:"
1) "Result hoarding" - failure to report a found key 2) "Segment hoarding" - requesting more segments than one can hope to search 3) Denial of service - preventing access to the server
Perhaps I wasn't clear... by real-world retaliation, I'm referring to being sued, thrown in jail, belabored about the head with blunt objects, etc. The three basic defenses I have are: (a) not getting people angry, (b) not letting them know who to be angry at, or (c) the threat of counter-retaliation. The "random" method is of type (b). I think you are focusing a bit too much on theoretical efficiency and not enough on bottom-line practicality. A 37% waste factor is better than staying in bed and wasting it all.
I _don't_ care about the procedures, as long as I can get the information I need to go my own way.
So what information wouldn't you be getting? To "go your own way", you need exactly the same information that the client workstations use to test one key. The difference in your code and the clients exists solely in how they determine the next key to try.
Yes, this is currently true, but there was a suggestion of witholding part of the challenge in order to keep people honest, or something like that. I didn't quite understand it, but I didn't like it. Will French <wfrench@interport.net>