[freenet-dev] Darknet vs opennet wording? was Re: Addressing the "Barlow" attack against opennet

2010-12-20 Thread Matthew Toseland
ome similar large scale peer to peer onion router. -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20101220/7660d180/attachment.pgp>

Re: [freenet-dev] Darknet vs opennet wording? was Re: Addressing the "Barlow" attack against opennet

2010-12-20 Thread Matthew Toseland
On Friday 17 December 2010 15:50:11 Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Tuesday 07 December 2010 17:21:07 Matthew Toseland wrote: > > On Friday 03 December 2010 19:15:22 Klaus Koch wrote: > > > > > It is a hard problem. But our traditional approach hasn't been > > > > > terribly > > > > > honest IMHO. >

Re: [freenet-dev] Darknet vs opennet wording? was Re: Addressing the "Barlow" attack against opennet

2010-12-20 Thread Matthew Toseland
On Sunday 19 December 2010 15:41:04 Lennart Ackermans wrote: > The current texts are indeed very easy to understand, but not very clear to > me. Most importantly, I don't get why darknet mode improves security. > > I'm assuming that security in this case means anonymity. But when you add > friends