[freenet-dev] Alpha, Darknet routing, et al.

[Robert Hailey]

On Feb 6, 2008, at 3:57 AM, Michael Rogers wrote:

> On Feb 5 2008, Robert Hailey wrote:
>> My question is, *if* such an idea is considered valid and in such a
>> case how could we be assured that us labeling and isolating a subnet
>> is not what *keeps* it labeled as a subnet because it's routing is
>> messed up for lack of swapping?
>
> We seem to be caught between a rock and a hard place - either we try  
> to
> merge clusters into a single key space, in which case we're  
> vulnerable to
> Sybil attacks, or we give every cluster its own key space, in which  
> case we
> lose the benefits of greedy routing and have to route between clusters
> explicitly. But perhaps either alternative is preferable to the  
> current
> situation: we don't successfully merge clusters but we don't label  
> them
> either...
>
> Cheers,
> Michael

I think you're absolutely right.

What's more, I bet there should be a particular relationship between  
the number of hops used for swapping and the number of hops for a  
connectivity test; that they would both be raised or lowered to make  
"Sybil" detection more/less sensitive.

--
Robert Hailey