> This is certainly the most level-headed and reasonable post of the entire > discussion and I must certainly agree that there is no reason to believe > our claims without simulation and it is up to the proposes of a new system > to create the simultion results necessary to support their point. I would also be interested to hear your comments on how my "Shadow Node" proposal (as posted here yesterday) compares to your proposal. Regards, Ian.
- [Freenet-dev] Node Operator Anonymity - the issues Ian Clarke
- Re: [Freenet-dev] Node Operator Anonymity - the ... Oskar Sandberg
- Re: [Freenet-dev] Node Operator Anonymity - ... Mr . Bad
- Re: [Freenet-dev] Node Operator Anonymit... Oskar Sandberg
- Re: [Freenet-dev] Node Operator Anonymit... Scott Gregory Miller
- Re: [Freenet-dev] Node Operator Anonymity - ... Brandon
- Re: [Freenet-dev] Node Operator Anonymit... Ian Clarke
- Re: [Freenet-dev] Node Operator Anon... Oskar Sandberg
- Re: [Freenet-dev] Node Operator... Ian Clarke
- Re: [Freenet-dev] Node Oper... Mr . Bad
- Re: [Freenet-dev] Node ... Ian Clarke
- Re: [Freenet-dev] Node ... Oskar Sandberg
- Re: [Freenet-dev] Node ... Ian Clarke
- Re: [Freenet-dev] Node ... Ian Clarke
- Re: [Freenet-dev] Node ... tavin
- Re: [Freenet-dev] Node ... Matthew Toseland
- Re: [Freenet-dev] Node ... Oskar Sandberg