Re: Re: [Tech] Crazy idea: How trust in darknets enables secure democratic censorship

On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 03:19:21PM -0700, Tom Kaitchuck wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >The network can't split. 50% isn't enough. You'd need a supermajority,
> >as I have explained - AT EACH NODE. It's not a global vote. Each node
> >would need 2/3rds of its connections to vote, and would need them
> >(including a biased score from the first layer of indirectly connected
> >nodes) to vote yes at say 2/3rds (supermajority depends on sanctions to
> >be taken, but 2/3rds sounds reasonable to trace the author). We would
> >probably have a large number of blocks to trace, so we could to some
> >extent work around uncooperative bits of the network, but the objective
> >is to find the node that posted the data, or the sub-network that it is
> >part of. We can then either warn them, or sever connections with them
> >(either all connections or premix connections).
> > 
> >
> I was assuming that there would be enough vairation in local oppinion 
> given that the groups are connected by aquantinces that there would be 
> local pockets of variation of oppinion. However what I was getting at, 
> was could go through a real usecase that takes into account all the 
> varrious possible roles in this scheme?

Hmm, I'm not sure exactly what you mean... you suggesting a detailed
hypothetical?
-- 
Matthew J Toseland - toad-EI5O+8PHWbJeeLb3ft/[email protected]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.

_______________________________________________
chat mailing list
[email protected]
Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat
Or mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFC1Em3HzsuOmVUoi0RAm7MAJ0XKe/2dnwUDPoPa2IZ5osIXSwsVwCfTyY3
yi8mNoVlx1q9oQXNBxTyaRQ=
=0nRk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----