@eyedeekay
&zzz
+R4SAS
+RN
+RN_
+T3s|4
+acetone
+dr|z3d
+eche|off
+hagen
+hk
+mareki2p
+postman
+qend-irc2p
+snex
+wodencafe
Arch
BubbRubb
Daddy
Daddy_1
Danny
DeltaOreo
FreeRider
FreefallHeavens
HowardPlayzOfAdmin
Irc2PGuest44301
Irc2PGuest56179__
Irc2PGuest73758
Irc2PGuest92548
Onn4l7h
Onn4|7h
Sisyphus_
Sleepy
SlippyJoe_
T3s|4__
Teeed
ardu
b3t4f4c3__
bak83
boonst
cumlord
dr4wd3_
eyedeekay_bnc
guest7621
not_bob_afk
not_human
poriori_
profetikla
r00tobo
rapidash
shiver_
solidx66
thetia
u5657
uop23ip
w8rabbit
weko_
x74a6
orignal
2.9.0 e.g. major release?
orignal
when?
zzz
<eyedeekay> mid-late may then?
zzz
<orignal> fine for me
dr|z3d
*** smiles. ***
dr|z3d
stay off the crack, orignal, it's making you forgetful! :)
EKCKABATOR54
Hello, zzz. I've been thinking a bit about congestion control in i2p. The main thing that worries me, and what prevents me from moving on to testing the effectiveness of specific algorithms, is the probability of opening attacks aimed at deanonymization due to an incorrectly chosen CC algorithm. Do you have any thoughts on this? I've skimmed through several articles from Tor about CC and I got the impre
EKCKABATOR54
d to be a more dangerous class of algorithms, although personally I don't understand why this does not apply to delay-based algorithms to the same extent.
zzz
Not familiar with the papers, your threat model, or where you're poking around, so can't offer any advice
zzz
eyedeekay, you're doing the website, right?