pipe-net

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 05:19:08PM -0300, Punk - Stasi 2.0 wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 01:33:29 -0400
> grarpamp <grarpamp at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Then you realize that again, a proper fill contract aware network
> > will auto detect and depeer any link that gets DoS, 
> 
> 	The 'literature' I've seen so far (up to 2007) mentions Pipe-Net 1.1 a few times and they say that when a Pipe-Net link is attacked, the whole network shuts down in self-defense. Which isn't too practical or robust...

Indeed.  Grarpamp's presentment makes much sense on this - nodes
don't drop all links (and domino this out) just because one went bad.

For 1995, pipe-net was the cutting edge, and vs the newer Tor:
besides more onion/ less packet switch, Tor just seems to have
introduced TCP as base layer to f@#$ things up - although arguably,
since TCP makes life easier for the prototyper (no having to handle
the things TCP handles, like re-sending, re-sequencing etc) - if Tor
weren't so funded, we could argue it's just a prototype, but since it
is so well funded, the more plausible explanation is that its
problems are intended.


> 	I haven't looked into how the the thing actually works yet...
> 
> 	http://www.weidai.com/pipenet.txt
> 
> 	...but I'm puzzled by the fact that the people commenting on pipe-net (like adam back) don't suggest the apparently obvious improvement of cutting links selectively instead of shutting down the whole thing. 
> 
>