Marcin Pawlowski 9bf61aaaec
reports/blend: section 3.11, timing
Prices two ways of delaying at a matched latency budget: the free-running clock
(batch at the tick) against an independent per-message draw. Measured by the
effective anonymity set of a release, and by MAP success -- how often the
observer single best guess is right -- because perplexity flatters a heavy tail.

The dominant result is that at the specified cover rate timing linkage is
essentially total under BOTH designs: the best guess is right 98-99% of the time.
That follows directly from the mixing~0 result of 3.10 -- a relay holds about one
message, and delay cannot manufacture ambiguity out of one message. Traffic buys
timing protection; delay does not.

Between designs the independent draw wins at equal cost, against the intuition
that batching should be safer: a tick is a hard boundary the observer can exclude
behind, whereas an exponential never excludes anything outright. But the margin is
a third of what the set size suggests (68% larger set, 19% better against the best
guess), so perplexity alone would have overstated the case for Poisson-style
mixing threefold.

A minimum release interval changes nothing, structurally: a zero-length gap is
instantaneous, so it never covers an arrival and is never sampled.

Section 5 updated -- the timing caveat is discharged, and the structural results
are now flagged as an upper bound on the anonymity a deployment actually gets.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-06 18:00:00 +02:00
2026-07-30 11:43:55 +02:00
2026-07-30 11:44:33 +02:00

Logos Blockchain Research

Description
Logos Blockchain Research
Readme MIT
Languages
Python 90.8%
C 3.2%
Shell 3%
Rust 1.9%
Makefile 0.9%
Other 0.2%