From: “Wei Dai” <weidai@eskimo.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 1d682ead7a058f7d8fdf3c5bfb5d05b2ef868e0cb1c8386444d9ddf989ec2d7f
Message ID: <199502131909.AA13622@mail.eskimo.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1995-02-13 19:10:02 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 13 Feb 95 11:10:02 PST
From: "Wei Dai" <weidai@eskimo.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 95 11:10:02 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Is Cyberspace Rich Enough?
Message-ID: <199502131909.AA13622@mail.eskimo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> [deleted]
> But can we do more? One of my own wishes is to see hundreds (nay,
> thousands!) of remailers, as these act as "teleportation booths" which
> can dramatically increase connectivity. (They can increase the
> connectivity in a different way that just straight connections
> can...they "stitch together" otherwise visibly-connected regions with
> unobservable connections, a desirable thing.)
I'm not sure that thousands of remailers will ever exist. There will
be little incentive for people to use small remailers, which, because
of their low traffic, add little untracibility per additional unit of
latency and monetary costs compared to larger remailers. Larger
remailers will also likely have better reputations for
trustworthiness. The economics seem to indicate that (if a market
of remailers is ever established) there will be a small number (less than
a hundred) of large remailers that are well used and profitable, and
a larger number of small remailers that are nearly never used.
> [deleted]
> * Web access remailers. Like the "anonymous anonymous ftp," why not
> explore combining Web systems with remailers? (Not so great for
> browsing, of course, but there should be some interesting
> possibilities.)
Remailers don't seem to be a good way to access the WWW, which is
much more efficient when done interactively. On the other hand, my
proposed Pipe-net would seem to be perfect for this, and other
communications that need both untracibility and low latency.
Wei Dai
P.S. People are more likely to respond to things they don't agree
with (as I did here). If you write something and no one responds,
it probably means that everyone except the lurkers agree with you, so
take it as a good sign.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBLz+uDzl0sXKgdnV5AQFvkwP/XiKF5kYexZUje14rk2iyxlLpLke8EHCY
BbRMFQZFQPk0KFo/8iThSn1Xs0xgHrjud5hmpoBxkR+pKMTPfNx6rbTFoSF3HQtX
VzNacOYflcb/eSjHDS02IhMH5wYeUpmKzBE+K4ZgZ35i7sdx8yoHb8laYp1Trhq5
iQ4fbWNy+UA=
=DiM1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
E-mail: Wei Dai <weidai@eskimo.com> URL: "http://www.eskimo.com/~weidai"
=================== Exponential Increase of Complexity ===================
--> singularity --> atoms --> macromolecules --> biological evolution
--> central nervous systems --> symbolic communication --> homo sapiens
--> digital computers --> internetworking --> close-coupled automation
--> broadband brain-to-net connections --> artificial intelligence
--> distributed consciousness --> group minds --> ? ? ?
Return to February 1995
Return to ““Wei Dai” <weidai@eskimo.com>”
1995-02-13 (Mon, 13 Feb 95 11:10:02 PST) - Re: Is Cyberspace Rich Enough? - “Wei Dai” <weidai@eskimo.com>