Both are good. Each has it's strenghs and weaknesses. It is more a religious question in my opinion, which of both is better.
No there are distinct advantages for PoW: - You can prove PoW's security. We know the failure points are 51% attack, 25 - 33% for selfish mining attack. Each PoS is adhoc, and can't prove generally/reliably the security nor characterize the entropy of the system. With PoS, generally you have no idea if you are secure or not. which is the antithesis of security.
- PoW can distribute coins, even widely to home users if you realize they will not count the cost of their electricity, but PoS can not distribute.
Whether someone can prove security math for a specific flavor of PoS, is something I am unaware of. Has anyone done it? |
|
|
|
What happens to PoW-based coins that one day reach a point where it is no longer profitable for miners to continue to mine due to the required resources? Could very well be the case with LTC at some point for example (unless I am mistaken).
Monero counters this by having a minimum block reward (ie. it is permanently disinflationary), so there will be no reliance on fees. I would imagine that, in the face of global adoption, the hashrate will tend towards some technological ceiling (let's call that supply) with the equlibrium being curbed by "mining profit" incentives (let's call that demand). General mining decline is staved off by Monero's Smart Mining system, whereby users (including those using lightweight wallets) mine in the background to a threshold when not on battery power and when the system is idle (enabled-by-default-but-optional). How does a declining block reward to some trickle constitute protection against a 51% attack? Also, you have some groups like 21e6 who are pushing the limits of computing for mining purposes (the ASIC manufacturer deal), just a handful of these types and you would have 3-4 individual "groups" that control 90% of the mining power of the market -- How is that good for a system that is intended for and relies on decentralization?
Just curious.
Monero's PoW closes the performance gap between CPUs, GPUs, and ASICs, so whilst this is entirely possible it still means that (in the far future) CPU miners could be a measurable part of the hashrate. Couple this with Smart Mining, and for-profit mining farms, and it seems unlikely that a small number will be able to exercise control over a significant portion of the hashrate. Mining centralization is also due to the rising transaction rate per second (see the current GavinCoin chaos for Bitcoin now) causing the increasing block size to not propagate without some centralization amongst a fewer number of high bandwidth nodes. Solutions such as IBLT are really just obfuscation of mining centralization. This is a complex discussion from another thread that I am not going to repeat here. Also afaik, ASICs haven't yet been designed for CryptoNite hash so I don't think you can reliably make that claim. |
|
|
|
There is no proof that POW is superior to POS. If there was then people wouldnt use adjectives like "I think" and "probably". Hybrid POW launch and POS to sustain the network for the fucking win.
There is one thing that PoW can do which PoS can't. Distribute coins to new users who own no coins. PoW fails at this in practice because Bitcoin is dominated by ASICs. I think I may have an economic solution that destroys ASICs. What happens to PoW-based coins that one day reach a point where it is no longer profitable for miners to continue to mine due to the required resources? Could very well be the case with LTC at some point for example (unless I am mistaken).
Also, you have some groups like 21e6 who are pushing the limits of computing for mining purposes (the ASIC manufacturer deal), just a handful of these types and you would have 3-4 individual "groups" that control 90% of the mining power of the market -- How is that good for a system that is intended for and relies on decentralization?
Just curious.
You raise real questions and indeed PoW may fail. That doesn't make PoS a success, it just makes it the other fail. I think I may have a solution to this and solved the 51% attack also. Await white paper. |
|
|
|
Well honestly I criticized VNL perhaps before smooth did I this week. It was because someone pinged me in PM asking my opinion. Then I was shocked to see there was no documentation of the zerotime algorithm which is the main claim. But now I need to go read the detailed zerotime paper just released to see if I need to rescind my criticism or not. I created extra work for myself, but maybe I will learn something so okay. Btw, thanks for informing me about AEON. This altcoin strategies world is quite stressful. I am just hoping there is one set of designs that is so clearly superior that everyone for the most part just realizes it and capitulates without the need for any grinding animosity and tearing at each other. And I hope it is my design, lol  Peace. |
|
|
|
|
Ping me again once there is a stable white paper for what is to actually be Dash. Seems like with the allusion to updates, they are still in flux and invention/tweaking mode. I'd prefer to read one time than have to reread again and again. But if I have extra time and curiousity, I will look at what you linked now. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
So POS is a sham? it's as clear cut as that?
... ... and do, make subtle changes to their systems when presented with flaws, or order to "fix" the flaws. In formal and security analysis, any change, however subtle, means the analysis needs to be completely redone. Obviously you can see how this might make it infeasible to keep up with every new variation and show how each and every one of them are broken in specific detail.
Nevertheless it is possible to analyze these systems in broad terms and reach conclusions in terms of general principles, such as needing to consume some external resource (i.e. proof of "work", broadly) in order to reach a decentralized consensusmaintain unbounded entropy...
But anyway, what of Paul Stzorc's response to Vitalik? Riskless counter-contracts. In general with PoS it seems to me that Vitalik and the other PoS people are falling into the "make the security model confusing enough that even really smart people can't understand it = good security" error. Sure, PoS doesn't seem confusing, but with things like stake-grinding plus an endless parade of more unfamiliar-to-security-researchers workarounds it optimizes for a security model that's difficult to poke holes in during debate, but that a motivated attacker could eventually figure out how to attack precisely because it's too opaque to know that what the attack vectors are so that they can be defended against.
I maintained since 2013 that PoS can't pull from a large enough pool of entropy. The randomization of order can be gamed. Note a natural source of external entropy can't be employed (as this would require centralization). The excessive use of resources in PoW can be easily solved by lowering the debasement rate (and transaction fees), but before you do this you have to remove the 50+% attack... Proof-of-Work vs. Proof-of-StakeExtending from my prior post, the bolded portion is an unnecessary assumption (i.e. a weaker assumption is also valid): https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf#page=7We further claim that a majority of the network is working on producing a DMMS which extends
the true history. An elegant reason that this is true is given by Vitalik Buterin in [But15]: since the
reward transaction is only recognized if its block occurs in the true history, a Nash equilibrium for
each miner is to go along with the majority6. The arguments made against Bitcoin succumbing to malfeasance is that the participants are self-interested in the value of the network and this interest in the public good is not undersupplied (because total or massive losses in value are possible). If that assumption is true, the participants would also align with the longest chain even if they weren't paid (note I make no claim about whether participants would mine for free, which can be considered orthogonally to my point), because the alternative is no consensus and loss of network value. Moreover, the latter assumption claim is more easily supported than the former, because it is always an immediate causal event whereas the former could be an obscured causality. Thus in the prior post I quoted from where Vitalik has refuted Andrew's arguments, and yet Andrew (and apparently Gregory Maxwell as well) still didn't get it. So you still think Maxwell is the supreme expert? He makes mistakes too. He is not omniscient. 6In that same blog post, Buterin says “if you are tired of opponents of proof of stake pointing you to this article[Poe14b]
by Andrew Poelstra, feel free to link them here in response”. It is not clear what he means by this; he did not, there or
anywhere, refute that paper’s claim that you cannot produce consensus except by consuming an external resource. What part of "subjective condition" did Andrew (and Maxwell) not understand? Vitalik demonstrated an example whereby PoW suffers an analogous requirement for assumptions of mutual incentive for optimization of the public good as PoS does. Andrew is trying to argue that PoS is self-referential thus can never be absolute proof. But Vitalik shows by example that PoW is conditioned on subjectivity also. The subjectivity claim against PoW may be weaker than against some variants of PoS (e.g. one-time spend addresses with check points), but the devil is in the details. PoW requires checkpoints to guard against 50+% attacks too. Checkpoints are a form of social trust (aka "assumptions of mutual incentive for optimization of the public good"), subjective (SPV-like) trust model which Maxwell alluded to. Objective: a new node coming onto the network with no knowledge except (i) the protocol definition and (ii) the set of all blocks and other “important” messages that have been published can independently come to the exact same conclusion as the rest of the network on the current state.
Weakly subjective: a new node coming onto the network with no knowledge except (i) the protocol definition, (ii) the set of all blocks and other “important” messages that have been published and (iii) a state from less than N blocks ago that is known to be valid can independently come to the exact same conclusion as the rest of the network on the current state, unless there is an attacker that permanently has more than X percent control over the consensus set. The main argument I had against Proof-of-Stake since my 2013 debates with Etlase2 was the entropy of the randomization function. I still have to look at how that is done in variants and see if my former criticism still applies. P.S. Andrew's paper and Vitalik's blog are both excellent for raising clarity on the issue and much appreciated.
Edit: Ah I see my long-standing reservation against PoS has remained true thus far: https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-love-weak-subjectivity/#comment-1730404390Random contract execution and random hash functions every x nonces both proved flawed after some research. The plan is to use a variant of Hashimoto for v1. |
|
|
|
I don't think it's an ad hoc design, it's just taking an existing p2p topology and classifying a section of the nodes to be able to preform higher functions / form internally their own mesh and then incentivize them and a quorum system for tie it together, and then building various applications/services on top of that. Most P2P networks have multi-tiers, e.g. Skype promotes end-nodes to super-nodes to route more traffic if you have a good connection... in P2P network design, Bitcoin is notable for *not* having multi-tiers. That's why I say it's a missing feature from Bitcoin which just has a single tier of fullnodes essentially, maybe Satoshi would have implemented it too if he was still around, it's not rocket science.
Except P2P networks are not Byzantine fault tolerant against Sybil attacks. Skycoin's white paper proves that only need 0.9% of the top-tier nodes to take over a reputation linked network. And wikipedia also documents that virtual synchrony is not Byzantine fault tolerant. If you are just doing a vote (quorum), then isn't essentially proof-of-stake which can be gamed unless the entropy is unbounded. Again if I had an incentive I could try to follow all that and explain why it is unsound. But I don't have an incentive. So you all can proceed with adhoc design if that is what you want to believe will win. I believe those with higher scholarly knowledge will win. We understand what Byzantine fault tolerance means. Again I am not saying you are wrong, because I haven't studied Dash lately and I don't have time to. It is giant obfuscation for me to try to dig into. Does even have a stable white paper that justifies the Byzantine fault tolerance? Smooth gets it... ... and do, make subtle changes to their systems when presented with flaws, or order to "fix" the flaws. In formal and security analysis, any change, however subtle, means the analysis needs to be completely redone. Obviously you can see how this might make it infeasible to keep up with every new variation and show how each and every one of them are broken in specific detail.
Nevertheless it is possible to analyze these systems in broad terms and reach conclusions in terms of general principles, such as needing to consume some external resource (i.e. proof of "work", broadly) in order to reach a decentralized consensusmaintain unbounded entropy...
|
|
|
|
Maybe it is designed to take out all the other CN clones except the market leader to clear out the system to two coins both controlled by "trusted leadership"? Does sort of make one wonder if smooth was trying to prove that cryptocurrency is dead because it can be cloned and siphon value. But it could also be that Monero may be planning to change its anonymity algorithm from CN to this new thing that mixes all the transactions in the block, so maybe AEON will retain the CN functionality and so he can invest on both technologies. And then he needs to invest in mine too Hey what is the problem with competition? I do think you have a point though that it is better to invest in a coin where the lead developer is totally committed. And that lead dev is committed to improving only his ecosystem to stay ahead of the competition. I find that to be a valid point. Who is that developer for Monero? fluffypony? I think the main issue you had with him is whether he is excessively expending time repeating criticisms over and over in other coins' threads. Again that is a subjective criticism. |
|
|
|
Then stop with your "they are wrong" stuff.
sheesh.
Who is wrong? Masternodes are not autonomous anonymity. I have no comment about other bells and whistles implemented with masternodes. Haven't studied those new features. blobafett2 claims (quite rightly) that masternodes are simply incentivized full nodes that provide extra functionality. One of these functions is mixing. Nowhere did he say that masternodes ARE autonomous anonymity. I (unsurprisingly) disagree about masternodes - segmenting the Bitcoin network topology into multi-tiers that can be incetivized and used to build apps & services on top (integrated mixing being the first service, instant transactions another, blockchain funded development / governance being the next) - fixes a major gap / missed opportunity in Bitcoin's architecture and, coupled with my confidence in the professionalism & ethics of the dev team and their consistent delivery performance, is the reason I invest in Dash - just to state that, and just my opinion.
I have not looked at that feature. It will be very counter productive to try to convince Dash supporters who believe in such features that they are wrong. But I never said they are wrong. So why did you tell me to stop with "they are wrong"? P.S. Masternodes have a complex description and I am not sure any of us entirely understand them. Last time I checked they were things you could buy. That changes the economics. They are not nodes paid with proof-of-work shares. I don't even have time to go analyze such an adhoc design (with copious tweaks to their meaning and functionality along the way I assume) and try to characterize what they really are formally. In computer science we understand adhoc design = no design or flying blind. |
|
|
|
Section 3.3 Message Propagation makes it clear that is a Bitmessage clone. Curious that the white paper makes no mention of how their system is similar to and/or different from bitmessage. But then, they did include bitmesssage in the list of references. It is not scholarly to not discuss prior art and explain the differences. Which is typical of altcoins isn't it. Also note I edited my post, to point out no discussions of spam resistance and scaling. |
|
|
|
I started discussing I2P on page 21 and the discussion continued until at least page 24 of the thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1049048.msg11842826#msg11842826
Also I don't know where to find a technical description of ShadowCash's private messaging anonymity algorithm?? You can see my analysis of similar attempts on the prior linked and following linked post, and I very much doubt that ShadowCash is doing it correctly: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1049048.msg11844778#msg11844778I am nearly certain that ShadowCash will have a flaw in it and that is probably why they are not detailing it in a white paper. They are hiding details.Edit: Okay I found the ShadowChat white paper. I didn't know what to google for until just recently. http://www.shadow.cash/downloads/shadowcoin-p2p-em.pdfSection 3.3 Message Propagation makes it clear that is a Bitmessage-like clone. They are sending every encrypted message to every peer on the network, except grouped by 1 hour channels. So that means they send out a list of all messages to all peers, then peers only request an hourly channel which contains a message intended for them. That is indeed Information Theoretic Security anonymity. So thus I will give ShadowChat a thumbs up. This is the first proposal I've seen which is a potential alternative to Bitmessage. From that description it may be feature incomplete from my perspective of what is really needed out by the market. And I will not detail now the other features I would like to see. They probably have many plans for the ShadowChat which I am not aware of. However, I don't know if it can scale. That is one of the problems with Bitmessage. Imagine you have 1 million peers and you have to send a message digest to all of them. You can of course shrink the anonymity sets to the desired sizes by decreasing the channel width in time, but the digests still need to be sent to every peer. There are alternative ways to design the channels so digests are not sent to all peers. Appears they haven't done that yet. Also there is no discussion of the spam resistance. Again I am giving ShadowMarket a thumbs down. |
|
|
|
Then stop with your "they are wrong" stuff.
sheesh.
Who is wrong? Masternodes are not autonomous anonymity. I have no comment about other bells and whistles implemented with masternodes. Haven't studied those new features. I stand by my comment that there is absolutely no details in the white paper for VanillaCoin. The claimed methodology is documented by research not to achieve Byzantine consensus. I stand by my comments today about ShadowCoin that is appears to be a Cryptonote clone with some claimed extra features which don't have documented anonymity Edit: apparently ShadowChat appears to be a Bitmessage-like clone but doesn't document anti-spam and scaling issues. Could you please clarify which of my statements is opinion and not fact? Edit: I have just been sent the full white paper on VNL's zerotime. So I will need to read that now. |
|
|
|
Humans are much more likely to associate you with being some authoritarian force than a force of reason and help.
Our goal needs to be how to spread cryptocurrency out to more people, not how to divide the spoils of those few people who land on bitcointalk.org.
And again, you assume motive: dividing spoils. I wasn't trying to insinuate that is your motive. I mean that is the way you may be perceived. And to me, that is not worth the gain in educating a few of their readers with my logic because of how it will cause them to never, ever, ever invest in my work in the future. I mean it will create an animosity for very little gain. I'd much rather be off trying to figure out how to tap some new market. I realize I did create some animosity in the past most against "Bitards" but this was because they were attacking me every time I tried to interject some doubts about the true nature of Bitcoin, etc.. But by now, I realized better to go do my own thing and make action. I stopped commenting in those Bitcoin threads. |
|
|
|
...Smooth has been trying to follow the various frauds alleged and so went over to the thread (perhaps out of boredom?) to follow up on...
This point is obviously misleading or wrong or both. Smooth has been posting sometimes dozens, sometimes only a few posts every day on that thread. For many months. That is not a casual "oh, let's see what's happening on another thread". That is a dedicated, full time mischief maker gone amok. These forums can become quite addictive. Look at me. Didn't I say I was going to code today  |
|
|
|
I believe smooth was very focused on how scams can detract from altcoins. But also we have to balance that against no one here was anointed the "altcoin police".
Policing implies authority, of which none is claimed, so that meme is quite irrelevant. Stating an opinion is something else. While there will always be a vocal subset of the audience who aggressively oppose an opinion contrary to their interests, they are not the audience of interest. Of course you are free to continue expressing your opinion. And I wasn't faulting you for wanting to help educate or clarify. But it I think carries a heavy price to try to persuade in a thread where a lot of the community there is already enamored with the feature set or the vision for the coin. Humans are much more likely to associate you with being some authoritarian force than a force of reason and help. Our goal needs to be how to spread cryptocurrency out to more people, not how to divide the spoils of those few people who land on bitcointalk.org. With anonymity, our goal should be about preparing for the coming stampede into private assets starting next summer or so. Let me give you an example. Right now if you want to communicate anonymously there is only one app that can maybe do it correctly. Bitmessage. Nothing and nothing else out there can even get close to giving you anonymity (which is not the same as encryption). And Bitmessage sucks! Sucks! Sucks! That is a huge untapped market. And I very, very, very much doubt ShadowCoin has cracked that nut correctly or even with a well documented open protocol that many people can create clients for. Edit: apparently ShadowChat appears to be a Bitmessage-like clone but doesn't document anti-spam and scaling issues. We need to get busy. There is so much coding and work to do. Okay I end here. I consider smooth to be an upstanding person. I hope he can help to push us forward on innovations. Dash is small potatoes. Let's shoot big. |
|
|
|
I (unsurprisingly) disagree about masternodes - segmenting the Bitcoin network topology into multi-tiers that can be incetivized and used to build apps & services on top (integrated mixing being the first service, instant transactions another, blockchain funded development / governance being the next) - fixes a major gap / missed opportunity in Bitcoin's architecture and, coupled with my confidence in the professionalism & ethics of the dev team and their consistent delivery performance, is the reason I invest in Dash - just to state that, and just my opinion.
I have not looked at that feature. It will be very counter productive to try to convince Dash supporters who believe in such features that they are wrong. I'd rather expend the effort trying to grow some new features and markets. Attacking each other won't reach our goal of spreading cryptocurrency. I believe smooth was very focused on how scams can detract from altcoins. But also we have to balance that against no one here was anointed the "altcoin police". In the case of VanillaCoin, there wasn't yet a large community and so I felt safe to point out that its main feature doesn't seem to be backed by the white paper. I am done commenting about VanillaCoin. People are free to make their own decisions with their money. I am making some comments today about ShadowCoin vs. Monero, because that is Cryptonote which is very relevant to the work I am doing, so I wanted to express my expertise in that area. You Dash supporters go do what you like. If ever you like something I am working on, then great. If not, we'll just see what the market decides after all. Peace. |
|
|
|
The Chinese are gearing up for something. First it was the "correction" on the stock markets and then they partnered up with the BRICS countries to create their own little circle of friends and now they are devaluating the Yuan. It's as if they are preparing for a strategic move in the economic market. I would be worried if I was in debt to them at this moment.  Do anyone else see this pattern or am I delusional? Break the economy and win the war before it started?  I guess they would sooner break their neck. It may look as if they are up to something when essentially they may be just desperate in their efforts to save their own economy from collapsing... Deep inside I never believed in China's economic miracle I read today that Argentina (one of the countries they were signing deals with) has 1/3 of their foreign reserves denominated in Yuan, so this devaluation is hurting those who partnered on the Yuan as a reserve currency diversification (at least in the short-term but remember Armstrong's model is the $USD will peak 2017.9 or 2020.05). Asia's economic miracle is still in place, because their debt is only at the corporate or LGO level and not unfunded social welfare liabilities to the tune of for example $125 trillion the USA owes the boomers. The West is demographically bankrupt, Asia is demographically fertile. This Minsky moment correction for Asia will be completed by 2020 and Asia will lead up in growth while the wheels fall off the West from 2020 forward until Singapore and Shanghai replace New York and London as the financial capitals of the world by 2032. The Yuan devaluation is more of a reflection of the death of the West (massive deflation) than it is a statement about Asia. Asia was primarily an exporter to the West. This collapse will ween Asia of that role and set it up to lead the world as a consumer and producing for its own constituency. The West needs to die as a consumer in order for that transition to occur. Don't be fooled. |
|
|
|
The Chinese are gearing up for something. First it was the "correction" on the stock markets and then they partnered up with the BRICS countries to create their own little circle of friends and now they are devaluating the Yuan. It's as if they are preparing for a strategic move in the economic market. I would be worried if I was in debt to them at this moment. Do anyone else see this pattern or am I delusional? Break the economy and win the war before it started? I guess they would sooner break their neck. It may look as if they are up to something when essentially they may be just desperate in their efforts to save their own economy from collapsing... Deep inside I never believed in China's economic miracle I read today that Argentina (one of the countries they were signing deals with) has 1/3 of their foreign reserves denominated in Yuan, so this devaluation is hurting those who partnered on the Yuan as a reserve currency diversification (at least in the short-term but remember Armstrong's model is the $USD will peak 2017.9 or 2020.05). Asia's economic miracle is still in place, because their debt is only at the corporate or LGO level and not unfunded social welfare liabilities to the tune of for example $125 trillion the USA owes the boomers. The West is demographically bankrupt, Asia is demographically fertile. This Minsky moment correction for Asia will be completed by 2020 and Asia will lead up in growth while the wheels fall off the West from 2020 forward until Singapore and Shanghai replace New York and London as the financial capitals of the world by 2032. The Yuan devaluation is more of a reflection of the death of the West (massive deflation) than it is a statement about Asia. Asia was primarily an exporter to the West. This collapse will ween Asia of that role and set it up to lead the world as a consumer and producing for its own constituency. The West needs to die as a consumer in order for that transition to occur. Don't be fooled. |
|
|
|
Max Weber is another source of the canonical definition of the State as the entity with a monopoly on violence. Is your viewpoint that the State must crush any truly anonymous network? Frankly I agree with that threat. But why waste our time kidding ourselves that I2P and Tor are anonymous against the twee ladder agancias. If we want to test our strength, let's actually create the anonymous network and give it a whirl. I am hoping what we will discover is that the State is actually quite impotent once people discover they don't need to pay taxes on virtual commerce nor be controlled by arbitrary laws (e.g. the War on Drugs when in fact the Deep State is running the world's drug cartel). Personally I hate addictive drugs (include even sugar in that as I never eat it any more), because they destroyed my family. But it is not my place to decide for others their lifestyle and poison. And besides freedom is needed in more areas than just drugs. I will give you one example. Up until a few months ago when Sulit.ph merged with Olx.ph, I was able to buy imported vitamins online at about 200% of the Amazon.com USA prices. Importers were bringing them in using a service filoutlet.com and then reselling. The oligarches in this country put a stop to that (because it was untaxed) and now you can't find any vitamins online except sites that report to the BIR. Thus the least expensive I can find now are 300 - 400% of the price on Amazon.com in USA. So now I have to ship my own vitamins from USA via filoutlet.com. Eventually the bastards will shut down every small business and everything must go through their large operations such as ebay, facebook, etc.. We have to fight back or the entire world will sink into a NWO hell with China and Asia leading the way from 2020 forward with Smart meters on every home that track everything you do, etc.. I believe once people taste a little bit freedom, they will never look back. The governments can not stop a movement that is individually based. I also believe Hillary Clinton will be using the anonymity network  Another point is the non-anonymous internet may become non-functional. The States are moving to tax it to death. Was it Chicago that announced it will tax video streaming? The more they tax the clearnet, the more they will incentivize the economic demand for the anonymous internet. Perfect! I hope they tax more and more![1] I agree it would be incredibly fun and hilarious watching the socialist States implode. [1] Of course I wish the world wasn't going into totalitarianism. I'd prefer a more peaceful resolution. But the reality is the world is going into the collapse of socialism. We either find a way to provide a frontier for ourselves, or we all do down together. |
|
|
|
I2P traffic and IP addresses are encrypted 4? times. How exactly is it unsecure?
Sorry I am not going to be able to teach you the exhaustive reasons in a forum thread. This issue will be explained more in depth in a future white paper. I understand it is very difficult for n00bs to understand. If you can't back up an argument with evidence, don't make it? It is not a simple argument to support. I have already supported in a document I have not yet published. I am not ready to publish it yet. But if you go to I2P's website, they readily admit what I've stated. I2P was not designed to be robust against three letter agencies. It was designed to provide some privacy against normal adversaries. I explained this is more detail in the "Economic Totalitarianism" thread. I'll try to dig up a link for you...wait... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
