On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Tom Kaitchuck wrote: > On Wednesday 12 November 2003 11:31 am, Jim Dixon wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, [iso-8859-1] Some Guy wrote: > > > Here's a neat paper Zooko (the MNet guy) pointed out: > > > http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/douceur02sybil.html They argue you'd need a > > > central authority to prevent a sybil attack. I think they're wrong. > > > > The author's claim is negative: he proves that given a reasonable set of > > assumptions, it is impossible for a large network without a certification > > authority to prevent a single attacker from successfully masquerading as a > > number of users. Once one or more attackers have done so, they can then > > expand their foothold by endorsing one another as well as other new > > attackers. > > > > His analysis applies to any large-scale p2p network. There are at least > > two defenses: either create some sort of certification authority (perhaps > > a supervisory p2p network) or allow/encourage fragmentation of the target > > network. > > Come now, This is not impossible. GNUnet does it. And does it well. I posted a > way to adapt this to Freenet's archticture a while back. It can be done. It > just requires a big code over hall.
You might be disagreeing with the conclusions of the paper on Sybil. If so, have you read the paper? If so, which conclusion are you disagreeing with? Or you might be saying that Freenet could create a CA. If so, can you be more specific? Or you might be saying that Freenet could allow or encourage network fragmentation. Are you? -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
