4 ms·

Is there any thought given to the response to a node operator who is detected/proven to be operating the node for surveillance or compromise? What would the res

by storge 9y ago

Is there any thought given to the response to a node operator who is detected/proven to be operating the node for surveillance or compromise? What would the response be? Will tokens not be sold to such a node operator?

saurik 9y ago
The goal of our network is to make it so that the network is protected as much as possible from users running compromised nodes. If you are a single node, you should not be able to do anything against the network. As the number of nodes you are in the system increases, the probability you will be able to pull of various forms of attacks against users of the network also increases. We are working on documenting these security tradeoffs in detail in our whitepaper (and any attempt I make to describe them here will be less accurate and thereby dangerous ;P). However, it is worth noting at a super-super high level that we are hoping to get a large number of nodes running the network and we have parts of our system that involve proof of work in a way similar to a cryptocurrency blockchain like Bitcoin. If a node in the Bitcoin network is operating for the purpose of compromise, it need not be banned from mining blocks: the network is designed in a way to make it so that such a node would not be able to pull off the kinds of attacks that people care about unless it owns a significant percentage of the resources being applied to securing the network. Our network has similar properties.
- storge 9y ago
  "We are working on documenting these security tradeoffs in detail in our whitepaper (and any attempt I make to describe them here will be less accurate and thereby dangerous ;P)." Maybe a whitelist of nodes themselves? (mostly in jest there) I suppose an agency with funding who can endlessly sockpuppet could gain a substantial portion of network nodes, but if they're unable to censor more than per-random-packet, a surveillance goal seems more likely. While this may not meet conventional definition of 'censorship', I wonder of the chilling effect. I suppose any such move toward a censorship-free network should expect surveillance. c'est la vie. Thank you for taking time to answer my question.

by storge 9y ago

saurik 9y ago

The goal of our network is to make it so that the network is protected as much as possible from users running compromised nodes. If you are a single node, you should not be able to do anything against the network. As the number of nodes you are in the system increases, the probability you will be able to pull of various forms of attacks against users of the network also increases. We are working on documenting these security tradeoffs in detail in our whitepaper (and any attempt I make to describe them here will be less accurate and thereby dangerous ;P). However, it is worth noting at a super-super high level that we are hoping to get a large number of nodes running the network and we have parts of our system that involve proof of work in a way similar to a cryptocurrency blockchain like Bitcoin. If a node in the Bitcoin network is operating for the purpose of compromise, it need not be banned from mining blocks: the network is designed in a way to make it so that such a node would not be able to pull off the kinds of attacks that people care about unless it owns a significant percentage of the resources being applied to securing the network. Our network has similar properties.

storge 9y ago
"We are working on documenting these security tradeoffs in detail in our whitepaper (and any attempt I make to describe them here will be less accurate and thereby dangerous ;P)." Maybe a whitelist of nodes themselves? (mostly in jest there) I suppose an agency with funding who can endlessly sockpuppet could gain a substantial portion of network nodes, but if they're unable to censor more than per-random-packet, a surveillance goal seems more likely. While this may not meet conventional definition of 'censorship', I wonder of the chilling effect. I suppose any such move toward a censorship-free network should expect surveillance. c'est la vie. Thank you for taking time to answer my question.