AICH hash [OLD REQ]

rowaasr13 · Post by **rowaasr13** » Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:32 pm

Previously requested here. I think AICH hash is common by now - right now >80% of ~4000 known clients in my eMule statistics are eMule 44+ clients. It also saved me thousands of Mbs of recovering from corruption (not to mention Gigs of redownloading for corrupt files from non-ED2K sources, with help of mod mentioned in that thread, that is now public). So, isn't it time to add it?

Raptor · Post by **Raptor** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:31 am

i would like to see TTH too as its the hash used in DC and it could really help finding the right file when a corrupted version of the file is also floating around.

Post by **exp** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:45 am

for new hashes to be included into anidb they need to be supported by AoM first.
once AoM can calculate them we can think about including them on AniDB.

BYe!
EXP

Post by **PetriW** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:53 am

O_o;
I thought it was the other way around.

Anyway, if you can give me DETAILED information on the hash set in question I might add support for it.

But AICH? Wasn't that flat out denied previously due to the very long hashes?

Website · Post by **Rar** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:02 am

AoM has tiger, was my understanding. If your going to add anything, I'd add that, not another ed2k specific hash-of-hashes.

Rar

rowaasr13 · Post by **rowaasr13** » Sat Mar 12, 2005 2:48 pm

PetriW wrote:But AICH? Wasn't that flat out denied previously due to the very long hashes?

No, read that thread again: DB would store only master hash - same hash that passed in ed2k link.
Just for example, it looks like this: ed2k://|file|UsageTrack.txt|16|0238D5C800F1052539B687D1158137CA|h=NHIBJOVBCMTJE4C7B2RC4HKCX7YUQRHK|/
(part after h= is AICH hash)

If you need it I'll try pulling AICH calculation from eMule source this Monday, when I'll be porting my mod to new version.

egg · Post by **egg** » Sun Mar 13, 2005 1:29 am

PetriW wrote:O_o;
I thought it was the other way around.

Maybe he is just stalling, even if it is something you would do, it wouldn't be until 0.6, then he has plenty of time to deal with it...

Post by **exp** » Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:08 am

PetriW wrote:O_o;
I thought it was the other way around.

well,

IMHO additional hash fields are useless if they aren't filled by default.
so in order for them to be usefull AoM would need to support them and I therefore think that it's best to wait untill it is clear whether AoM will support a hash in question or not.

and anidb would of course not store full AICH hash sets but only the master key. and if we include that one or not might still be a topic for some discussion.
same goes for any other hashes.

BYe!
EXP