Good morning m.a.holden,
>
> I think you might have misunderstood what I was proposing, but it's probably
> my fault for not expressing it well. With my suggestion, all nodes continue
> to be equal participants and there are no special nodes. I used the term
> "endpoint" previously to mean one
Good morning Christian,
First:
> Like mentioned above the entire job of trampolines is to provide base
> routing capability, and we should not make special provisions for myopic
> trampoline nodes, since routing is their entire reason for existence :-)
The point of providing this special provisi
Hi ZmnSCPzj,
I think we should not try to recover from a node not finding the next
hop in the trampoline, and rather expect trampolines to have reasonable
uptime (required anyway) and have an up to date routing table (that's
what we're paying them for after all).
So I'd rather propose reusing the
Good morning list,
> Could this be implemented by replacing only the front of the trampoline-level
> onion?
> (presumably with some adjustment of how the HMAC is computed for the new
> trampoline layer)
I am trying to design a trampoline-level onion that would allow replacement of
the first h
Good morning ZmnSCPxj, thanks for the response.
> I would be hesitant to divide the world in such manner.
> I understand that in typical computer science, splitting your objects up into
> smaller parts is a long-accepted method of doing things.
> However, when it comes to finances and political
