Matthew Toseland wrote: > Right, even if each node has the same number of exit nodes. And then you've > got the effects of nodes going down or going up on the set of exit nodes for > each node. You need to have a lot of inertia here, or that'll give away a lot > of information. Hence my coming up with the idea of cells. The question is, > is it workable?
If the members of a cell can somehow agree on its membership then I don't think it's a problem if exit nodes come and go (except in the general sense that if a node's ever offline when your pseudonym is active then that node can be removed from your anonymity set). But what happens if a cell is split due to nodes being offline? How can the members of a cell agree on its membership without including Sybil nodes? Start by finding a clique of n nodes (n-1 of your neighbours are all connected to each other). Recursively add every node that has at least n-1 neighbours in the cell. (Smaller values of n will result in more and larger cells.) Does the result depend on the order in which nodes are considered? Cheers, Michael
