Re: [freenet-dev] Post-0.7.0 priorities

Florent Daignière wrote:

> * Jano <alejandro@???> [2008-05-14
> 12:55:49]:
>
>> Florent Daignière wrote:
>>
>> > * Jano <alejandro@???> [2008-05-14
>> > 11:21:05]:
>> >
>> >> > Personally I'm pretty skeptical of anything requiring more than 100MB.
>> >>
>> >> However, current implementation (IINM) uses the cache to resume
>> >> downloads. Thus, downloading anything bigger than that in more than one
>> >> go has the potential of a lot of waste in retries (hence BW & time).
>> >>
>> >> I know, it's a spurious reason since downloads in progress could be saved
>> >> somewhere else until completion... but still is a reason for now.
>> >>
>> >
>> > They are good reasons why we shouldn't implement download-resuming.
>>
>> Could you please elaborate?
>>
>
> For the n-th. time : not having that "feature" gives users a good
> incentive to keep their nodes up.

OK. I completely disagree, but I don't want to re-discuss this old topic right
now. I thought you had some security-wise reasons in mind.