Yeah, this could work. Since I was working with a confidence level of 90% on the predictions, assuming three jumps would fall within that (well, it isn't that simple when you multiply random variables, of course). Since we are assuming 12 seconds per jump, even 3 jumps is more then half a minute of course...
Man, I hated statistics - why does it have to be so god damn useful? On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote: > The problem of sending requests with HTL=1 to probe a node, and > the problem of minimum depth Hal pointed out are really just the > same problem for opposite ends, and can share the same solution. > Adam's "Random Death" idea doesn't have enough detail to actually > solve the problem, so I'm offering specifics here that might-- > please tell me if you think this will work. > > When receiving a message, if HTL is 2 or greater, decrement it. > If it is 1, apply the following: > > Rec'd HTL Probability New HTL > > 1 60% 0 (and therefore timeout) > 1 40% 1 > > That is, decrement it 60% of the time, leave it at 1 40% of > the time. On the average, this is equivalent to subtracting > 0.6 from HTL, so the message will eventually terminate (in fact, > it will take an extra hop 40% of the time, 2 extra hops 16% > of the time, 3 extra hops 6.4%...falling off rapidly. But the > fact that it can sometimes take that many adds deniability. > There is always a full 40% likelihood that a request with HTL=1 > getting fulfilled does not pinpoint the data, which ought to be > plausible enough deniability. And you can't just send multiple > requests and use Bayes Theorem because the first request may > have cached the result from a downstream. When the HTL _does_ > go from 1 to 0, and the node does have the data, it can > introduce a small delay equal to a typical small message round > trip to a neighbor. This will only be done once (since it is > only done when the data is found), so it is not a big > performance penalty. > > To solve the Depth problem, apply the same idea in reverse. > Depth starts at 1. When a node receives a message with > depth greater than 1, it increments. If it receives a > Depth of 1, it increments 60% of the time, and leaves it > at 1 40% of the time. > > A node receiving a Depth=1 can only conclude that the node > sending the message was the originator with 60% likelihood. > There is a 40% it was 1 hop away, 16% it was 2 hops, 6.4% it > was 3, etc. The final value of Depth when the data is found > will very rarely more than 3 or 4 hops too small, so the > replying node can just add 10 to compute hops home and be > pretty safe (1 in 1000 chance of failure, not accounting for > the extra hop or two HTL may add on the way back). > > -- > Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html> > "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, > are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified > for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC > > > _______________________________________________ > Freenet-dev mailing list > Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev -- Oskar Sandberg md98-osa at nada.kth.se #!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj $/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1 lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/) _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
