On Friday 04 January 2008 19:57, Michael Rogers wrote: > 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?
Above I was talking about without cells. But this is why it is important for a cell to be well-connected! Having said that, is going through untrusted nodes as gateways from one trusted node to another a problem? As long as we can choose two cell members to go through, we should be okay? > > 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? I would have thought so. > > Cheers, > Michael -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080104/30ac74f1/attachment.pgp>
