~dr|z3d
@RN
@RN_
@StormyCloud
@T3s|4
@T3s|4_
@eyedeekay
@orignal
@postman
@zzz
%Liorar
%ardu
%cumlord
+FreefallHeavens
+HowardPlayzOfAdmin
+Onn4l7h
+Onn4|7h
+Over
+Rogueone
+Sh0ck
+Xeha
+hk
+poriori
+profetikla
+qend-irc2p
+r00tobo
+romer
+uop23ip
+wew
Arch
BubbRubb1
C341
Danny
DeltaOreo
Irc2PGuest41480
Irc2PGuest43584
Irc2PGuest67879
Meow
SigSegv
acetone_
aisle1
anontor
b4dab00m
carried6590
duck
halloy13412
itsjustme
mareki2p
maylay
moe
nnm--
not_bob_afk
pory
r00tobo[2]
shiver_
simprelay
solidx66
thetia
weko_
woodwose
xHarr
zer0bitz_
dr|z3d
if we run out of valid peers to explore, why not just stop until we learn about some more?
zzz
if you're low on peers you need to do something
zzz
the expl. system just got really janky over the years, trying and failing to fix hidden mode, a bunch of injected bugs, it's not a good story
dr|z3d
that's where I think the in-network reseed starts to look useful. less onerous on the network and the router. just ask another router, "hey, toss me over 30 peers would ya?"
zzz
been working on hidden mode for a month trying to get to the bottom of it
dr|z3d
let's face it, if you're low on peers, searching for random keys that may or may not exist probably isn't going to save you.
zzz
you'll have to explain why in-net reseed is any better than (properly implemented) exploration where you chase the DSRM hashes
dr|z3d
explore the good hashes all you like, but if you just want some fresh peers because you're low, just ask another router to toss you over some. original used to do that, not sure if he does anymore.
zzz
thats what exploration is. gimme some hashes. then ask him for the RIs. now you have as many RIs as you want
orignal
if you think it's better to reply with RI I will do this way
dr|z3d
sure, I'm just saying we're also exploring for random hashes. we can probably not bother with that.
dr|z3d
and if we can just snag as many RIs as we need in bundles without having to expend any initial effort, all the better. we can toss them on the explore queue for later.
orignal
respond with 16 like i2pd does
orignal
please tell me how i2pd never has an issue with low number or routers
orignal
even without transit
zzz
easy. because you don't implement hidden mode.
dr|z3d
LOL
zzz
I'm trying to fix problems, you think it's time to brag about how you're better?
dr|z3d
orignal: do something useful, get a haircut.
orignal
but I have "stan" mode
orignal
well I'm asking what's a problem
orignal
because expolratory is a easy as mooing
orignal
please explain what I'm missing
zzz
nothing.
orignal
then what's with hidden mode?
orignal
becuse I have hidden mode implicitly
zzz
it tends to run out of peers, because exploration has issues, and I'm fixing that
T3s|4
welcome Sh0ck :D
T3s|4
now you've got a voice, here, Sh0ck
T3s|4
Sh0ck: also because you have many Tb of content to potentially share on snark, it's important your i2p+ and snark settings are optimized. dr|z3d is right man to ask :D
T3s|4
*the right man
orignal
optimized in what sense?
T3s|4
orignal: the number of snark tunnels in/out and the number of hops for each path, plus any desired in.out leengthVariance
T3s|4
*lengthVariance
dr|z3d
we go up to a max of 32 outbound tunnels now in the snark + UI.. if you're hosting a ton of torrents, bumping your outbound tunnel count won't hurt.
wew
i'm a little confused. spec here geti2p.net/en/docs/applications/bittorrent says that non-compact announces is deprecated and all clients should use compact mode. but compact mode does sha256(dest) and then how do clients connect to each other knowing only sha256 of destination?
zzz
cumlord, typo in your changelog Qauntum
zzz
wew, b32 lookup
Sh0ck
t
Sh0ck
Its working T3s|4 !
Sh0ck
Thanks <3
dr|z3d
welcome to #saltr, Sh0ck
T3s|4
glad you're persistent, Sh0ck :D
wew
does i2p have some non-standard base64 for destinations? stuck with decoding it using encoding/base64 in golang. sometimes it decodes, sometimes not lol
wew
nvm, found at github.com/go-i2p/common