Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[liberationtech] CJDNS hype

Mitar mmitar at gmail.com
Sun Jul 14 13:00:26 PDT 2013


Hi!

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Caleb James DeLisle
<calebdelisle at lavabit.com> wrote:
> The most scary general attack on the idea is a node who drops 10% of the
> packets sent through them. I don't know how to detect it statelessly and
> they can do quite a bit of damage.

Exactly. You don't have to black hole everything, just enough to make
the network behave badly.

> Again though the physical reality of the network comes in to play.

A "physical reality" in your case means the tunnels between nodes, not
necessary the real-world physical distance?

So you have tunnels between nodes and you assume that those tunnels
are established based on some trust?

And you route along the tunnels? I thought that you route along the
Kademlia distance between keys of nodes. So if my key ID is closer to
node B than to node C, I send packet to node B. And it does not matter
how the tunnels are setup. It seems I misunderstood something then.
This is then quite different than Kademlia. And from whitepaper:

"The "address space distance" between any two given addresses is
defined as the of the result of the two addresses XOR'd against one
another, rotated 64 bits, then interpreted as a big endian integer."

So where does this definition of distance take into the account that
there is trust between two addresses but no trust between some other
two addresses?


Mitar

-- 
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m



More information about the liberationtech mailing list