high latency low b/w ping circles: random vs clocked

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 01:51:36PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

> > If the ping is not clocked, but is timed (clocked) to a statistically
> > random time within a configured window, the GPA cannot know when to
> > conduct their latency injection attack, and any dropout by me, would
> > be seen by those who failed to receive my ping or received a delayed
> > ping, as nothing but white noise, since every ping is randomly timed
> > anyway.
> 
> 
> The ability to hide ping recipients when I and or they are only
> intermittently connected (i.e., we all live on mobile phones), is in
> serious doubt.
> 
> The reasonable (excepting further analysis) operating mode is to, at
> least, have a node which is permanently connected - but again, we
> need consider each use case in due course...


That said, friends expose their friend connections daily these days -
sms, text, phone calls, facebook, "likes" and endless more social
virtue signalling signals.

"You and your friends, who live only on mobile phones" are often
connected around the same time.  In these circumstances, fixed base
rate links provide hiding of whether or not we are chatting, voice
talking, or surfing through one another's nodes.  This is useful
"content, and type of" comms hiding.


  "Just because we cannot hide who we are communicating with,
   does not mean we should not exercise our right to hide the
   content and frequency of our communications."


If my phone always connects to the same peer nodes when I turn my
phone on, and vice versa, and we always establish certain base rate
links, we may not even be communicating and no one would know,
assuming we always reserve a minimum base rate load as "chaff or
wheat" between our phones, and such that when we accept additional
circuit requests, those exist above the private "always reserved"
base link.

This is the headroom concept, but always chaff filled, and reserved
between me and my primary first hop peers.