Dishonest Tor relay math question - tor-talk is to lazy

[PrivacyArms]

>> Thing is, I don't trust Claudia to get it right (we have a history... ).

history?



‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Saturday, October 16, 2021 1:34 PM, Peter Fairbrother <peter at tsto.co.uk> wrote:

> On 16/10/2021 10:12, Stefan Claas wrote:
> 

> > On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 10:24 AM Peter Fairbrother peter at tsto.co.uk wrote:
> > 

> > > > Though there's no such thing as 100% anonymity, security, etc...
> > > > there are certainly different comparative magnitudes of it available
> > > > today, and higher ones are probably quite achievable with some
> > > > work on new alternative models.
> > > 

> > > Examples?
> > 

> > https://nymtech.net/
> > Regards
> > Stefan
> 

> I had a look at the whitepaper - Claudia has outdone herself in
> describing a system which could maybe work - but, and I quote, "The
> specific algorithms and implementation details of each part of the
> system will be fleshed out in separate documents."
> 

> There is no proof, or even enough details, to show that it will or even
> could work. It's all sweeping statements and claims, backed up by - nothing.
> 

> Thing is, I don't trust Claudia to get it right (we have a history... ).
> 

> The loopix part looks interesting, at first glance. Though "a
> measure of sender and receiver unobservability" is not exactly reassuring..
> 

> Peter Fairbrother

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: publickey - privacyarms at protonmail.com - 0x6ECBFF11.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 3278 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20211017/153272f7/attachment.key>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 855 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20211017/153272f7/attachment.sig>