3 ms·
I'm not sure this currency will take off but how about the following: Instead of network paying for DDoSing TLS connection let it pay for relaying TLS connectio
by sheerun 10y ago
I'm not sure this currency will take off but how about the following: Instead of network paying for DDoSing TLS connection let it pay for relaying TLS connections.
The principle of would the same as in DDoSCount, but miners relay connections of certain users until it results in signature of given difficulty. After obtaining such signature, miner would be able to withdraw from user's account certain amount of coins. The probability dictates miners would withdraw randomly from all users.
- CapacitorSet 10y agoA bit like Torcoin, basically.
- detaro 10y agoLink to the Torcoin paper, for other people like me who hadn't heard about it: https://petsymposium.org/2014/papers/Ghosh.pdf https://petsymposium.org/2014/papers/Ghosh.pdf
- chatmasta 10y agoHey, I wrote that :) The big challenge for any kind of decentralized "proof of bandwidth" scheme is verifiability. How do you know two actors are not colluding to say they are producing bandwidth? Or how do you resolve conflicts when a client thinks he transferred 1gb but the host thinks he transferred 10gb? Our solution was to use a verifiable shuffle, where all relays and clients submit their public keys into a matrix, which the shuffle then transforms into routing paths. The result is that the client gets a "path" (e.g. A tor circuit, but it could be any routing path) that is privately addressable but publicly verifiable. So each node on the path only knows the IP address of its neighbor node, but all nodes on the path can sign bandwidth calculations with a group signature. That said it was two years ago for my senior thesis... hardly a work of art :P I'm still pursuing the ideas in one form or another.