Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Apr 29, 2020. It is now read-only.

File-chunk identification possibility #85

Closed
shalnoff opened this issue Dec 25, 2015 · 6 comments
Closed

File-chunk identification possibility #85

shalnoff opened this issue Dec 25, 2015 · 6 comments

Comments

@shalnoff
Copy link

Is it possible to identify the file that chunk is owned (and vice versa)?

@RichardLitt
Copy link
Contributor

I'm not sure. @diasdavid @whyrusleeping what do you think?

@whyrusleeping
Copy link

@shalnoff could you clarify what you mean?

@daviddias
Copy link

@shalnoff if your question is 'given a chunk, can I identify the file it belongs to, without any other information at all', the answer is no, you can't, that would violate the principle of a DAG.

@mcast
Copy link

mcast commented Sep 13, 2016

@shalnoff if your question is 'given a chunk, can I identify the file it belongs to, without any other information at all', the answer is no, you can't, that would violate the principle of a DAG.

I would only add, "...unless you have some extra information". Would these methods work?

  1. fetching the chunk's data, recognising some distinctive feature of its encoding. e.g. it's plain text, or gzipped text with a convenient block start; take five words and put them into a search engine to get the original.
  2. enumerate (List all items stored on ipfs and corresponding hash value #155) a large enough swathe to discover (some of) the chunk's parents.
  3. be in possession of some kind of reverse-lookup index, constructed from such enumeration

In a different chunking system, which could ride ipfs it is by design impossible to identify chunks.

@shalnoff
Copy link
Author

Clear, that's what I'd like to clarify. Thank you (sorry for late reply)

@madavieb
Copy link

This issue has been moved to https://discuss.ipfs.io/t/file-chunk-identification-possibility/353.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants