On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 05:19:08PM -0300, Punk - Stasi 2.0 wrote: > On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 01:33:29 -0400 > grarpamp <grarp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Then you realize that again, a proper fill contract aware network > > will auto detect and depeer any link that gets DoS, > > The 'literature' I've seen so far (up to 2007) mentions Pipe-Net 1.1 a > few times and they say that when a Pipe-Net link is attacked, the whole > network shuts down in self-defense. Which isn't too practical or robust...
Indeed. Grarpamp's presentment makes much sense on this - nodes don't drop all links (and domino this out) just because one went bad. For 1995, pipe-net was the cutting edge, and vs the newer Tor: besides more onion/ less packet switch, Tor just seems to have introduced TCP as base layer to f@#$ things up - although arguably, since TCP makes life easier for the prototyper (no having to handle the things TCP handles, like re-sending, re-sequencing etc) - if Tor weren't so funded, we could argue it's just a prototype, but since it is so well funded, the more plausible explanation is that its problems are intended. > I haven't looked into how the the thing actually works yet... > > http://www.weidai.com/pipenet.txt > > ...but I'm puzzled by the fact that the people commenting on pipe-net > (like adam back) don't suggest the apparently obvious improvement of cutting > links selectively instead of shutting down the whole thing. > >
