3 ms·
"one minor technical problem that I still need to overcome" Presumably that would be decompression? ;-)
by arethuza 6y ago
"one minor technical problem that I still need to overcome"
Presumably that would be decompression? ;-)
- jacquesm 6y agoNo, for some reason after 30 rounds or so of running it depending on the data that I feed it it will stop compressing. It's lossless after all, and after that the filesize slowly increases. Must be a bug somewhere. It decompresses just fine. How hard can it be? /s.
- arethuza 6y agoI had rather hoped you could repeat the process indefinitely = maybe to get down to one byte or even one bit. Only requiring one bit of storage would help a lot in lots of situations - not to mention the potential for increasing network throughput!
- jacquesm 6y agoI know, but first let's fix this one bug. With a potential of approaching infinite dollars any kind of valuation for this algorithm would be fair so how about it? One of the very first tech DDs I ever did was a totally rigged demo. I don't think I ever wrote about it. Those people must have really hated me for puncturing their balloon. Some other investors took the bait and lost tons of money.
- pftburger 6y agoI implemented it once as well, all the way down to single but storage. Turned out to be a huge security nightmare though, because it kept decompressing into other people’s files! Another problem was telling the compressed bits apart.
- Simon_says 6y agoWhy did you stop at 1 bit?
- jacquesm 6y agoOtherwise investors might get suspicious that something was up. On another note, I have this protocol that can transfer any file in just 64 bits. It needs a rather large dictionary on both sides but other than that it 'just works'. Interested?
- Simon_says 6y agoNah, I got another guy who can do it in 56 bits.