[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[freehaven-dev] what I'm doing for the paper
So we met tonight and discussed what to do with our paper. I am personally
committed to the following things:
1) Revamp the related works section. Introduce a distinction
between the "robustness" notion used in related works
and our "reliability" notion. (maybe come up with new,
not so confusing terms?).
The distinction is that the previous protocols have
- an "all or nothing" notion of robustness;
the distributed MIXes work if k out of n
are honest, and fail otherwise.
(I need to read the papers carefully to
make sure this is precise; i.e. no gap
where it's not clear whether the MIX
fails or continues)
- solely with ensuring robustness in
the protocol and not with reputations.
2) Delinate 3 different "approaches to anonymity"
1 - via protocol
2 - via reputations
3 - via having someone pay for it (ZKS))
3) Move the model from section 6.2 to a new
section 3 "MIX Model and Assumptions"
This section will have two parts
1 - Anonymity-Breaking Adversaries
which uses the notion of adversary
inherited from all previous MIX papers.
2 - Reliability-Breaking Adversary
which uses the model from 6.2
We don't know how to unify these yet, but that
will be future work. The point is to address
the reviewers' comments that we don't have a model
or a sufficient definition of passive adversary.
4) Fix section 6. Right now it assumes picking
with replacement. Except as a reviewer pointed out
this is not the right way to think about it.
Also other gremlins which popped in.