>> Thing is, I don't trust Claudia to get it right (we have a history... ).
history? ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, October 16, 2021 1:34 PM, Peter Fairbrother <pe...@tsto.co.uk> wrote: > On 16/10/2021 10:12, Stefan Claas wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 10:24 AM Peter Fairbrother pe...@tsto.co.uk wrote: > > > > > > Though there's no such thing as 100% anonymity, security, etc... > > > > there are certainly different comparative magnitudes of it available > > > > today, and higher ones are probably quite achievable with some > > > > work on new alternative models. > > > > > > Examples? > > > > https://nymtech.net/ > > Regards > > Stefan > > I had a look at the whitepaper - Claudia has outdone herself in > describing a system which could maybe work - but, and I quote, "The > specific algorithms and implementation details of each part of the > system will be fleshed out in separate documents." > > There is no proof, or even enough details, to show that it will or even > could work. It's all sweeping statements and claims, backed up by - nothing. > > Thing is, I don't trust Claudia to get it right (we have a history... ). > > The loopix part looks interesting, at first glance. Though "a > measure of sender and receiver unobservability" is not exactly reassuring.. > > Peter Fairbrother
publickey - privacyarms@protonmail.com - 0x6ECBFF11.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
