On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 09:57:01PM -0600, Brandon wrote:
>
> > Your back on legal loopholes. The fact is that the shielded node relies on
> > the existance of public nodes, so you have simply moved the target that
> > the enemy needs to have shut down.
>
> You don't move the target, you reduce its size. A smaller target is better
> because less nodes can get shut down. A system with *no* public nodes
> would be great if someone could come up with one. But a system with fewer
> public nodes (assuming that it doesn't break the network) is better.
No, reducing the size of the target makes it easier to take it down and
thus destroy the system. If there were a single public node and everybody
shielded behind that would require only a single attack to take down. A
system with no public nodes wouldn't work.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Freenet-dev mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
--
'DeCSS would be fine. Where is it?'
'Here,' Montag touched his head.
'Ah,' Granger smiled and nodded.
Oskar Sandberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
