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
Sun Jul 14 13:00:26 PDT 2013


On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Caleb James DeLisle
<calebdelisle at> 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?



More information about the liberationtech mailing list