Re: E language over I2P

[email protected] (Derick Eddington) on Saturday, March 1, 2008 wrote:

>> However, to be able to have consistent vat identities so that 3-party  
>> introduction always works, a vat must use the same VatID and  
>> associated key-pair no matter what transports it is using.
>
>Oh. Right.  I think this means I2P can't be a good fit with other
>transports because it is its own entire secure transport, designation,
>location, and authentication system.  However, if the transport and
>URI/referencing/introducing stuff is modularized and abstracted right,
>would it be possible to swap I2P in and use it only, so that there could
>be only-I2P-transport E-users networks, where all 3rd party
>introductions are fine?

One could imagine some certificates which said the vatID x on
network a is the same as vatID y on network b. If these
certificates were signed with the private keys which generated the
two vatIDs, this assertion could be believed, although the
resulting system is somewhat more complex.

Cheers - Bill

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz        |"We used to quip that "password" is the most common
408-356-8506       | password. Now it's 'password1.' Who said users haven't
www.periwinkle.com | learned anything about security?" -- Bruce Schneier