On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 06:00:37PM -0400, Tavin Cole wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 12:00:15AM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 05:52:12PM -0400, Tavin Cole wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 11:31:20PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> > <>
> > > > Yes, but it doesn't stop one party from having more references than
> > > > other parties, so it cannot be considered to address honest cancers at
> > > > all.
> > >
> > > You mean network-wide? It certainly does deter one party from having
> > > more references than another within the same node. And don't you think
> > > it would therefore be a deterrent, network-wide?
> > >
> > > The operator of an honest cancer node would really have to walk a
> > > tightrope to keep a presence in as many other nodes' routing tables
> > > as possible, yet without becoming the local ubernode too rapidly.
> >
> > Tavin, one party can be any number of nodes...
>
> Yes, yes. I think we have been arguing about slightly different
> scenarios here.. fagetaboutit
Well, that is one way to solve a dispute, but I'm not looking for that
level of commitment at the moment... :-)
> Well, we can at least make the network safe from script kiddies..
I'm adverse to making such fuzzy assumptions about adversaries. Really,
if we want to make an assumption it should be a measurable one ("They
can't control more than 10% of the nodes", "They can't crack a 128 bit
key") rather than something fuzzy like "That makes it a lot harder".
I could be accused of being selective of where I apply this though...
--
'DeCSS would be fine. Where is it?'
'Here,' Montag touched his head.
'Ah,' Granger smiled and nodded.
Oskar Sandberg
oskar at freenetproject.org
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
Devl at freenetproject.org
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
