Talk:Kademlia

message: There is yet another implementations though I'm not sure anymore, who's developing it or if it recently forked...CSpace
CSpace-HP and at Google Code  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.189.24.2 (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementations 

message: Here is a list of P2P Overlays
Overlays.
Is overlay the correct word? --ShaunMacPherson 19:24, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Overlay is the correct word used by academics.  The link given is of DHT (or structured) P2P overlays.  Other unstructured P2P overlays exist, such as Gnutella. Non-P2P overlays exist such as the Skype network, etc. See also Structured versus Unstructured. Bpringlemeir 19:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlays 

message: * A non-p2p use found it's way into I2P (they mentioned Kademlia anyway). This is one of the scalability projects i am currently studying. If i get more information on such usage i will certainly contribute it to this article.
:--Sarah (Kuro) 22:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice, the article no longer (confusingly) describes the algorythm as a "protocal" as it had in 2005 --Kuzetsa (talk) 09:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other uses 

message: In my understanding, Kademlia is not a network protocol.  It is an algorithm (or "system", as the authors of the original article call it) that can be implemented as a network protocol.  I have edited the article to reflect this belief.  If I'm mistaken, please let me know. Strait 04:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The paper refers to it as a system.  There are protocol details, algorithms and data structures.  Some parts are a bit sketchy, like how the unbalanced binary tree is handled and splitting k-buckets that aren't in the nodes range. Bpringlemeir 15:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protocol 

message: What is the derivation of the name? Roberthoff82 15:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, what on earth does it mean?  Maikel 09:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was named after the mountain in Bulgaria. --PacoBell (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: kadc need some working peers stored in a file to start a node, but what about utorrent ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.131.209 (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For trackerless torrents, there are several peers included in the torrent.  At least this is what some torrents downloaded from Gnutella show when dumped with "torrentinfo" in the Python Mainline code.  I think you are referring to bittorrent and not utorrent.  In this case, the bootstrap nodes are in the torrent file (afaik). Bpringlemeir 15:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Kademlia start a node 

message: I can't find a reference to cyclic groups in the paper. It is pretty clear that ({0,1}, xor) is a cyclic group, but ({00, 01, 10, 11}, bitwise xor) is not cyclic because it has no generators (for all x, x xor x = 0), and similarly for all bitstrings of length longer than 1. Does anyone have a citation for the reference to cyclic groups being important in the analysis?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.212.111.83 (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct.  It doesn't say anything about cyclic groups in the paper.  I was looking for a simple term for a non-abelian algebra.  It uses the fact 2^N is an algebra to prove things in the paper cited. Bpringlemeir (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  err, not algebra but group.  The larger {00, 01, 10, 11} is not a cyclic group, it is two cyclic sub groups.  You could change this to what ever you like.  I was only trying to convey that algebra/groups are used in the proof.  Implementers of the protocol/system (and probably most readers) won't care too much about this.  Bpringlemeir (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyclic group? 

message: There are 2 places in which the triangle inequality is defined. There are 2 different definitions on this page. I changed the definition and put it in both places. The reason I could not use the definition in the triangle inequality page, is because it is defined from an edge perspective not a vertex perspective. Let me know if everything is in order, I have not made many commits.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyle Stephan (talk • contribs) 15:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of triangle inequality 

message: Hey,
I guess there is a slight inaccuracy which makes the section extremely confusing:
"Nodes that can go in the nth list must have a differing nth bit from the node's ID" from "Routing Tables" , should be "Nodes that can go in the nth list must have n differing bits from the node's ID" as each list refers to a difference "distance" which is in this case the hamming distance of those two strings...
I'm not really familiar with the wikipedia editing process, so I post it here.. Sorry.
bye  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.19.118.207 (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Error 

message: About this sentence:
: This is very efficient: Like many other DHTs, Kademlia contacts only O(\log (n)) nodes during the search out of a total of n nodes in the system.
Does this mean that in 10 hops, you can contact 10 billion nodes? --Dan Bolser (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this is probably natural log, not base 10 log, so 20 hops would be required to reach (approximately) 10 billion nodes. --Dan Bolser (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  About hops: <math>O(\log (n))</math> 

message: The Next Generation section says "Petar Maymounkov, one of the original authors of Kademlia, has proposed a way to circumvent this weakness by incorporating social trust relationships into the system design." and then references a paper by Chris Lesniewski-Laas, there is no mention of Petar Maymounkov.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.89.192.117 (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:   Possible Reference error 

message: "When a k-bucket is full and a new node is discovered for that k-bucket, the least recently seen node in the k-bucket is PINGed. If the node is found to be still alive, the new node is placed in a secondary list, a replacement cache. The replacement cache is used only if a node in the k-bucket stops responding. In other words: new nodes are used only when older nodes disappear."
This description is inconsistent with the section "4.1 Optimized Contact Accounting" of the Kademlia paper. Specifically, the first sentence is only valid for a naive implementation of the contact accounting. When the paper presents an optimized contact accounting in the 4.1 section, which introduces the replacement cache, it mentions that PINGing the least recently seen node in the k-bucket every single time the k-bucket is full and a new node is discovered for that k-bucket results in a lot of traffic, and to reduce that traffic "Kademlia delays probing contacts until it has useful messages to send them", i.e. it doesn't do these PINGs that the first sentence mentions anymore. So it's either the naive contact accounting -- PING least recently seen node and have no replacement cache, or optimized contact accounting -- don't PING the least recently seen node and do have the replacement cache. Not both, as the article currently says.
97.102.162.195 (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake in the contact accounting with the replacement cache