> The "shadowing" makes sense should the most important and scarce commodity
> on the network be disk space
Shadowing is purely a tool to aid in protecting people's nodes from "Media
Enforcer"-style attacks, you are correct in saying that it will eat up
more bandwidth, but this isn't the point. Also, I am not so sure that I
agree that bandwidth is truely a scarce commodity since, at least not the
"last mile", since if you aggragate most people's bandwidth usage over
time (say 24 hours) it will only be a fraction of their potential
bandwidth usage.
> but I think it's more likely that the most
> scarce commodity will be bandwidth, to which the "shadowed" nodes would
> give no contribution.
Er - "shadowed nodes" are not intended to be a benefit in terms of
bandwidth, or diskspace usage, but in terms of helping people to reduce
the probability that their node can be identified by someone like "Media
Enforcer" or the Chinese government. I am therefore not really sure why
you are bringing bandwidth into the discussion.
> But it's not a bad idea and since it is harmless when not used it may be
> worth adding at some point.
Do you think that it at-least partially addresses the "Media
Enforcer" problem?
Ian.
PGP signature
