Re: [Freenet-dev] Node Operator Anonymity - the issues

[Sven Neuhaus]

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.

I think it's the other way round. The more nodes there are, the harder
it is to shut them (all) down, especially when they are spread all over
the planet.

-Sven
-- 
God made everything out of nothing, but the nothingness shows through.
                -- Paul Valery

PGP signature