3 ms·

There's also PeerReview: Practical Accountability for Distributed Systems [1] published in 2007: PeerReview ensures that Byzantine faults whose effects are ob

There's also PeerReview: Practical Accountability for Distributed Systems [1] published in 2007: PeerReview ensures that Byzantine faults whose effects are observed by a correct node are eventually detected and irrefutably linked to a faulty node. At the same time, PeerReview ensures that a correct node can always defend itself against false accusations. [1] https://doi.org/10.1145/1323293.1294279 https://doi.org/10.1145/1323293.1294279

synctext 6y ago
Author here. Yes, PeerReview is the most important piece of literature for us. We use a lot of similar concepts. Difference is that we're working for the past 18 years on getting this fully working, and deployed. Science is slowly making progress towards an "Internet-of-Trust". - PeerReview assumes full network knowledge which is unrealistic in open p2p networks. - PeerReview is built for full protocol replay and replication whereas TrustChain selectively replicates relevant information in the network. This significantly reduces storage and communication overhead, at the cost of fraud cases staying under the radar. Latest work is our upcoming AAMAS 2021 publication, "Achieving Sybil-proofness in Distributed Work Systems", https://staff.science.uva.nl/u.endriss/aamas-2021/programme/paper-sessions.php#34 https://staff.science.uva.nl/u.endriss/aamas-2021/programme/...