(FWD) RE: [freehaven-dev] Against adversaries who want their MIXes listed as most reliable

[Roger Dingledine <arma@mit.edu>]

[I'm forwarding this because it was sent from an address that
isn't subscribed to the list.]

----- Forwarded message from owner-freehaven-dev@seul.org -----

From: "Lucas Gonze" <lucas@worldos.com>
To: <freehaven-dev@freehaven.net>
Subject: RE: [freehaven-dev] Against adversaries who want their MIXes listed as most reliable
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:07:56 -0400

> How well does this argument actually hold up? Where does it fail, where
> does it succeed? Are there other (alternate) arguments that might help
> the issue?

Leaving aside the long run, there will be always be short periods when dominant
MIXes do exist.  This is because transitional periods are inevitable.  If one
MIX pulls ahead, then other MIX providers may decide to enter the field, but in
the meantime the MIX that pulled ahead is more able to do traffic analysis.  If
there are natural monopolies for MIXes then these transitional periods could be
pretty long.

Since transitional periods are inevitable and can be long enough to matter,
there is a problem.  The only way I can think of to fix the problem is to look
for natural disadvantages of dominant MIXes.

For example, if carrying a greater proportion of traffic degrades privacy
control, the value of the MIX's services goes down.  Buyers of MIX services
would wait for reports of privacy violations or would need to be able to predict
privacy violations from data on market share.

- Lucas

----- End forwarded message -----