"Mark S. Miller" wrote:
> At 09:53 PM 11/8/99 , email@example.com wrote:
> >Also, your Vat to Vat protocol does not try to camouflage traffic
> >patterns; although the data is encrypted, an eavesdropper can determine
> >when communications occur, and how much data is sent.
> From talking to Ian Goldberg, I believe Pluribus would be perfectly happy to
> live on top of the Freedom network. Pluribus does nothing for
> untraceability. Freedom (from our point of view) does nothing but
> untraceability. These seem like orthogonal composable parts of the puzzle.
> Our standard high security scenario for analyzing possible risk should
> therefore probably be Pluribus on Freedom (assuming ZKS open sources it),
> and users who consider the untraceability of value. I don't want to blow
> this kind of value elsewhere in the architecture.
> Btw, an I using the right terminology? I would say that E/Pluribus provides
> pseudonymity & bearer rights, Freedom provides untraceability, and Blinding
> provides unlinkability. Robust privacy benefits from having all three
Freedom also provides anonymity and privacy.
ZKS don't have to open source Freedom (though I've already strongly suggested that they should), because it can be used as a library without open sourcing, right?
-- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi