[freenet-dev] Moving to a simple coin was Re: Tunnels vs premix routing was Re: Vulnerability in inserting the manifest before finishing

[Matthew Toseland]

On Wednesday 23 January 2008 00:15, Michael Rogers wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > How valuable are negative samples? If you are directly connected to the 
> > originator, you will *never* get a negative sample from it (assuming you 
can 
> > unambiguously identify the requests of interest).

So which scheme is preferable?
> 
> The target location and nearest location of a negative sample could 
> reveal a lot. If nearestLoc==prevLoc then dist(originator,target) >= 
> dist(prevLoc,target). Each sample gives you a range of possible 
> originator locations, and if you get a series of linkable samples you 
> can intersect the ranges.
> 
> Example: a peer at location 0.3 sends you an interesting request with 
> target==0.7 and nearestLoc==prevLoc, so dist(originator,0.7) >= 
> dist(0.3,0.7), so the originator's between 0.1 and 0.3. Then the same 
> peer sends you another interesting request with target==0.9 and 
> nearestLoc==prevLoc, so dist(originator,0.9) >= dist(0.3,0.9), so the 
> originator's between 0.3 and 0.5. Your peer must be the originator.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> Devl mailing list
> Devl at freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080123/fdbf184d/attachment.pgp