~dr|z3d
@RN
@RN_
@StormyCloud
@T3s|4
@T3s|4_
@eyedeekay
@orignal
@postman
@zzz
%Liorar
+Anomaly
+FreefallHeavens
+Xeha
+cumlord
+hk
Arch
DeltaOreo
FreeRider
Irc2PGuest59363
Irc2PGuest68122
Irc2PGuest9535
Leopold_
Meow
Nausicaa
Onn4l7h
Onn4|7h
Over
T3s|4___
acetone_
anon4
anu
bak83
boonst
glowie
itsjustme
mareki2pb
not_bob_afk
poriori_
shiver_
simprelay
solidx66
thetia
u5657
weko_
not_bob
dr|z3d: Shit, fixed.
not_bob
dr|z3d: Shit, fixed.
dr|z3d
!
not_bob
Or, it will be fixed onces the instances catch up.
not_bob
:(
not_bob
*** is tired ***
dr|z3d
kick back, have a beer, take some afk time!
not_bob
I'm going to take a nap.
dr|z3d
someone tried to kill Trump at his latest rally
snex
Old news
dr|z3d
just catching up with it then.
darius
if ur not cia please msg me, i have an idea
darius
or not fbi or any other tla
dr|z3d
?
dr|z3d
you want the entire channel to message you?
darius
i'll unclude ppl one by one in the order of request
darius
include
dr|z3d
don't hold your breath!
darius
lol its about securing ethical computering
darius
but i dont need anyone on gov payrolls
darius
its basic stuff
dr|z3d
somehow I suspect they have better things to do than lurk here, but I may be wrong.
darius
here's a freebie, now that we have an upload *and* download limits for i2psnark i put forward that we also need a "downloader peers" limit. eg. i've been using a low bitrate and i found on occasion there'd be a "stalling" effect, that seemed to be caused by trying to connect to too many downloaders. When it tries to connect to a more reasonable number of peers then the 'stalling' did not happen. I would go so
darius
ffar as to wonder whether the number of peers might be dynamically chosen based on provided bandwidth? Eg. uploader==-1 ? choose for me
darius
i have a formula for calculating effectiveMaxPeers for i2psnark from the user-supplied maxPeersField and user-supplied bandwidth.
darius
if (userSupplied_maxPeersField<8) effMax=userSupplied_maxPeersField;
darius
else
darius
coEff=maxPeersField*2-16
darius
effMax=CEIL(maxPeersField-coEff/(bandwidth – 2))
darius
/ bandwidth must be 4 (kbps) or above btw
darius
i put this into a spreadsheet and played with the numbers and i think the result is going to work fairly well, no matter how many max peers a person says they want, if they set the bandwidth to 4kbps the effective number of peers will be 8, if someone sets the number of desired peers very high though, it does climb a bit fast :/ so it works best if max peers is under 40
darius
thats only one-way btw so if one were to consider both up and down peers with 40 max in each, that's 80 peers altogether, i doubt anyone would want to go that high.
darius
ok i've been able to flatten the curve...
darius
the new "else" {
darius
coEff=maxPeersField*6-48
darius
effMax=CEIL(maxPeersField-coEff/(bandwidth + 2))
darius
} // done
dr|z3d
it's all yours, zzz!
darius
lol yes, i am going to smooth the curve one more time, this uses power-of-two numbers
darius
the new new "else" {
darius
coEff=maxPeersField*8-64
darius
effMax=CEIL(maxPeersField-coEff/(bandwidth + 4))
darius
} // :P
darius
if you want to add some randomness to avoid fingerprinting add ±1 to effMax
darius
dunno if anyone tracks connections tho so that may be redundant
darius
no the curve is still too steep, for weird fringe cases like 100 peers, i should be able to make it less steep depending on the size of the maxPeersField but i need a break